Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Leeds and Bradford Extension) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Torquay Corporation Electricity [Lords],

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Leicester Freemen Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter past Eight of the Clock.

Jarrow Extension and Improvement Bill (by Order),

London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter past Eight of the Clock.

Milford Docks Bill [Lords] (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BHAGALPUR EXHIBITION (SWARAJ FLAG).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a Swaraj flag was hoisted alongside a Union Jack at the Bhagalpur exhibition owing to a threat from the non-co-operators to wreck the exhibition unless it was allowed to remain; and, if so, whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Government of India report that the facts of the case are as follow: The exhibition was entirely non-official, the committee which managed it including local Non-co-operators. The Commissioner of the Division took a great interest in it, and his wife was asked to open it. On the morning of the opening, the Commissioner was informed that the decorations included Swaraj and Gandhi flags, and he refused to take part in the opening until they were removed. On the assurance that this had been done, his wife opened the exhibition in the afternoon, but next morning it was found that one Gandhi flag in a prominent place had only been furled, and not removed. When the Commissioner insisted on its removal, the non-co-operators opposed the idea, and threatened to break up the exhibition. They suggested that the Union Jack should be flown alongside, and higher than the Gandhi flag to indicate Swaraj within the British Empire, and the Commissioner agreed to this course. The Governor in Council, on being informed, decided that no further action was possible, though he would have preferred a more severe treatment of the impertinence of the non-co-operators. The Commissioner was warned to be more
vigilant in future, and to take care not to afford sympathy to a movement which might be turned against the Government. The incident was much resented by the local European community, and the jail exhibits were withdrawn. The Government of India have informed the local Government that they share the regret that more drastic action was not taken, and have indicated clearly their decision that in no circumstance should the Swaraj or Gandhi flag be flown in conjunction with the Union Jack, even if placed below it. My Noble Friend realises the importance of the prevention of such incidents in future.

BURMA (CONSTITUTION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Whyte Committee on the new Burma Constitution was sent to the Indian Government in January; if so, why has it not yet been received in England; when does he intend to implement the Constitution by notification or otherwise; and what is the cause of the delay?

Earl WINTERTON: The Report has reached the India Office, but, as was explained in reply to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bantinck) on 7th March, further action' cannot be taken until the recommendations of the Government of India and the drafts of rules required to give effect to the recommendations have been received and considered. I am sure that the Government of India are dealing with the matter as expeditiously as possible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord communicate with the Government of India, and endeavour, in the interests of peace in Burma, to expedite this Report?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already explained that that has been done. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will recognise that the Government of India have much to engage their attention.

ANTI-BOYCOTT BILL (BURMA).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India
whether he will lay upon the Table the Anti-Boycott Bill which is raising opposition in Burma?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps it will meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member if I place a copy of the Bill in the Library.

CINEMA FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received any Report from the Government of India regarding the censorship of cinema films; and if he can state what has been the result of the suggestions made for making the censorship in each place more efficient throughout India?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend is asking the Government of India to expedite their reply. I recognise the importance of the question of the efficiency of film censorship.

Sir C. YATE: Is the Noble Lord aware that some of these cinemas are of a most pernicious kind and are doing an infinite amount of harm in India? Will he take steps to see that there is an efficient censorship?

Earl WINTERTON: I have covered that in my reply, when I said that the importance of the suggestion is recognised.

Sip J. D. REES: Is it suggested that these films are used for seditious or improper purposes?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not the least idea what is the suggestion.

INDIAN SUBJECTS, KENYA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received the Resolution of the Indian Legislative Assembly stating that any departure from equality of status in Kenya would be regarded as a serious violation of the rights of Indians to citizenship, and protesting against the Colonial Secretary's speech at the East African Dinner; whether there has been any change in the policy of the Department owing to the retirement of the late Secretary of State; and, if not, whether the matter will be brought before the Cabinet for a considered decision?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen the resolution referred to. The Secretary of State has not yet had an opportunity of studying the matters involved in all their details; they are still under consideration, but the honourable and gallant Member may rest assured that no effort will be spared to secure a satisfactory settlement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The part of my question which asks whether there has been any change in the policy of the Department owing to the retirement of the late Secretary of State has not been answered.

Earl WINTERTON: The answer is, No, Sir.

ARMY (PENSION RULES).

Sir C. YATE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the pension rules for Indian officers of the Indian Army granted King's commissions for specially distinguished service in the War; and whether these officers count their full previous service, and not half their service, as officers for pension in the same manner that warrant officers of the British service, when promoted to commissioned rank, count their full service as warrant officers for pension?

Earl WINTERTON: No special rules have yet been drawn up as to pensions for Indians to whom King's commissions have been granted after previous service as Indian officers. All who have been so commissioned up to the date of introducing special rules will be eligible for pensions at the same rates as British officers of the Indian Army. The question whether service in Indian commissioned ranks should count in full for pension on the superior scale will be taken into consideration.

Sir C. YATE: Will the Noble Lord take into consideration the fact that if only part of the number of years of Indian commissioned service is allowed to count, some of these officers will get less pensions than if they had simply been given honorary commissioned rank on the termination of their service?

Earl WINTERTON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better put that particular point down. All relevant facts will be taken into consideration.

ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, considering that warrant officers of the Indian Ordnance Department are drawing on an average 20 per cent. less in pay and allowances than the warrant officers of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps who are working with them in arsenals and depots in India, he will either suggest to the Government of India the necessity of bringing up the pay of the Indian Ordnance Department to a scale equivalent to that of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, or else he will arrange with the War Office for the early withdrawal of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps from India; and why it is that men performing similar duties should be paid less under the rules of the Government of India than under those of the Home Government?

Earl WINTERTON: The information available does not bear out the statement in my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but inquiry will be made of the Government of India.

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will now publish the dispatch sent to the Viceroy in February on the subject of the security of Government service pensions in India?

Earl WINTERTON: Arrangements are being made to present the despatch this week.

RETIREMENT (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the result of the consultations which took place in February between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy in regard to the extension of the date for retiring from the Civil Service on proportionate pensions?

Earl WINTERTON: The Secretary of State is still awaiting a reply from the Government of India to the despatch sent to them by his predecessor on this subject. He realises the importance of arriving at an early decision, and is endeavouring to expedite it.

WIRELESS SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if an Indian
application has been made to the Indian Government for a licence to work a direct wireless service between India and England; if he will state who is the applicant; and whether the licence is being granted?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that such an application has been received, but that the Government of India do not consider it desirable at this early stage to disclose the name of the applicant. No licence to private persons or companies for wireless communication between India and England is being granted at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (LEVEE DRESS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disappointment that is felt by officers in the Army and Territorial Army Reserves that they may attend His Majesty's Levees only if wearing the full or service dress of their respective units; whether, having regard to the fact that the majority of such officers were commissioned since the outbreak of the late War, and do not and cannot afford to possess the full dress of their respective ranks and regiments, and having regard also to the widespread desire for an inexpensive alternative dress to full or service dress, he will consider what alteration might with advantage be made in the present dress regulations; if he will consider whether the uniform known as blue undress might be sanctioned for the purposes of attendance on the part of Reserve officers at Levees, subject, of course, to His Majesty's wishes, and at public functions and ceremonies, where at present to such officers full or service dress only is permitted; and whether, for the purposes suggested, and in order to mark the position of blue dress more particularly as an alternative regimental uniform, some such addition as the wearing with blue of the regimental badges, with or without a facing of the appropriate regimental colour, might be sanctioned with benefit both to the Army and to those officers who are now on the various Reserves of His Majesty?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission,
I will circulate the reply to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT—the reply being a long one.

The following is the reply:

The question that I am asked to answer really amounts to a proposal to allow certain categories of Reserve officers to provide themselves with an entirely new order of dress to wear at Levees. I sympathise with the motives that have prompted the inquiry, and feel that a short explanation of the orders of dress now in force in the Army generally will provide the best reply. With the exception of the Household Cavalry and Foot Guards, the only orders of dress at present authorised are service dress and mess dress. The Household Cavalry and Foot Guards have, in addition, full dress. His Majesty the King has permitted service dress to be worn at Levees by officers not in possession of full dress of their rank, and it would serve no real purpose to substitute for service dress the alternative recommended by my hon. and gallant Friend. Economy would not result, while the wearing of an order of dress differing from that worn by the officers of the regiments with which the Reserve officers were closely associated during the War would create the impression that these officers were no longer identified with the units in which they had served and fought, an impression which, I am sure, my hon. and gallant Friend would be the last to wish to create. The occasions, moreover, on which the categories of officers mentioned in the question would wear military uniform are limited, and I think that when these officers do wear military uniform the dress that is most appropriate is the one that carries with it not only regimental tradition, but also war-time associations and memories.

WAR DECORATIONS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decorations have been issued to officers, non-commissioned officers, or men who never served overseas in the War; and, if so, how many were granted to those who had home service only?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The circumstances of not serving overseas naturally did not disqualify any officers or soldiers who rendered meritorious service during the War from receiving such appropriate honours and rewards as they
might have received for analogous good service in time of peace. The answer to the first part of the question is therefore in the affirmative, but I regret that I am not in a position to answer the last part from any record readily available.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if decorations have been granted to the higher commands for home service, the Home Service Medal cannot be granted to other ranks?

Sir L WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I said, the circumstance of not serving overseas did not disqualify any officers who rendered appropriate service.

Mr. THOMSON: Why does it disqualify other ranks in the Territorials who did not serve abroad?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does not disqualify for Orders. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises the difference between Orders and Medals.

DECEASED SOLDIERS (BALANCES).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how much money the War Office has belonging to ex-service men detained in lunatic asylums; and what steps are being taken to ensure that, in the event of a man dying in an asylum, the money that is due to him for services rendered to his country shall go to his next-of-kin?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The total of the balances on account of the ex-soldiers referred to is £128,000. When a soldier is discharged as insane and transferred to a lunatic asylum, the superintendent is requested to inform the War Office in due course of his discharge or death. If and when his death is thus notified, the War Office communicates with the legatee under any valid will, or with the next-of-kin if no valid will is known to exist. The estate is then disposed of in accordance with law.

Mr. MALONE: As most of these persons do not make wills, are any steps taken, by advertising or other means, to bring the matter before the public?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The next-of-kin is, as a rule, registered, and notification is given to the next-of-kin.

OFFICERS (REDUCTION).

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War, seeing that commanding officers of the regiments it is proposed to reduce in strength have been asked to send to the War Office the names of the officers whose retention in the service they consider is the least necessary, will he consider the question of whether the opinion of the second in command and the next senior officer of these regiments should also be taken, due regard being given to the opinion of the commanding officer?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not considered necessary to issue instructions that the opinion of the second-in-command and next senior officer should also be taken, but a commanding officer is at liberty to consult such officers before submitting his recommendations to higher authority, should he desire to do so.

EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS.

Viscount WOLMER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has seen the balance sheet of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, drawn up as on the 31st August, 1920, and the remarks of the auditors of the balance sheet, Messrs. Maxwell Hicks and Company, in the Press on 7th January, 1921; and whether he will consent to publish the balance sheet?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he wishes to conceal the facts in this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no desire whatever to conceal anything, and the Noble Lord has no right to make such an insinuation.

Viscount WOLMER: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman publish this balance sheet, if he does not wish to conceal it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have told the Noble Lord on previous occasions that this balance sheet is not a balance sheet which gives sufficient of the facts not to be misleading.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why do you not publish what facts there are?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will my right hon. Friend publish a balance sheet that does show the facts?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend remembers, but I have said over and over again that balance sheets are being prepared which will show the full facts, and as soon as I have them I will publish them.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why should there be two years' delay?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend knows that in the realisation of these stocks a considerable amount of time has been taken, and the values put on them at one period do not represent the values actually received after realisation. These accounts are very intermixed and intricate, and are being got out.

Viscount WOLMER: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This discussion is becoming a debate.

IRISH GUARDS (SERVICE OVERSEAS).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to certain comments in the Press upon the selection of the 1st battalion Irish Guards for service overseas before other Guards battalions; and whether he can state what was the position of this battalion on the roster for foreign service, in view of these comments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The 1st battalion Irish Guards has been selected to go to Constantinople solely because it was at the top of the roster for foreign service.

WILL (PRIVATE J. C. CARVER).

Mr. KILEY: 22.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, seeing that the late Private J. C. Carver, No. 8,514, Northumberland Fusiliers, made a military will, which has been recognised as valid by the War Office, that by that will he left everything to Miss Margaret Elizabeth Barclay, now Mrs. Snaitham, and that the War Office now refuses to pay over to Mrs. Snaitham the sum of £20 6s. 4d. belonging to the deceased soldier's estate on the ground that they have already paid this sum to the wrong person, if he will say what remedy Mrs. Snaitham has in the matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Private Carver was reported missing on 14th September, 1914, and his death was subsequently presumed to have taken place on or since that date. In April, 1916, no will being in the possession of the War Office it was assumed that he had died intestate and his estate was issued to his father as next-of-kin. In July, 1921, the military will referred to by the hon. Member was received in the War Office. As the estate was properly disposed of according to the information in possession of the Department at the time, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Regimental Debts Act of 1893, no further liability attaches to the War Office, and the only suggestion I can make is that the legatee should endeavour to recover from the father the sum in question.

Mr. KILEY: Has she no claim against the War Office? If they have done wrong, are they not responsible?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They have not done wrong, and there is no claim under Section 18 of the Regimental Debts Act.

TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers still hold temporary commissions in the Army and draw pay thereunder; whether there are enough surplus Regular officers to take their places, and, if not, why such temporary officers have not been regularly commissioned; whether Regular officers and regiments about to be disbanded will be given preference to such temporarily commissioned officers; and, in view of this disbanding of Regular units, whether he can say how many temporarily commissioned officers will be retained?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of temporary officers serving with the Regular Army on the 1st March last, including a few Militia and Territorial Army officers, was 1,767. They are retained for Royal Engineer, Royal Army Service Corps, and similar technical duties for which no sufficient number of Regular officers are at present qualified. It would be uneconomical to grant permanent commissions in respect of the whole of this work, since much of it is of a temporary nature. I am unable to say at present whether any of the
officers in question may have to be permanently commissioned, but, other things being equal, existing Regular officers would naturally be employed and retained in preference to them.

Captain COOTE: Are we to understand that there are no temporary officers now serving?

Sir L. WORTHINGT0N-EVANS: There are none in the cavalry. I think there are four in the infantry, who have special legal knowledge.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are there also no medical officers being employed, and preventing the promotion of some of the senior majors in the Royal Army Medical Corps?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure of that. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question specifically referring to medical officers, I will reply to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Viscount WOLMER: 18 and 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether any losses have been incurred during 1919, 1920, and 1921 by the Navy and Army Canteen Board and the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in other localities besides Ireland; if so, whether it is proposed to defray those losses out of public funds; if so, how much money will be required for the purpose; whether they will figure in the forthcoming Army Estimates;
(2) the amount of money lost in trading operations by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in Ireland; whether it is proposed to defray this loss out of public funds; and, if so, in what Estimates and under what heading will the Vote be placed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the answer to these two questions is very long, I will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

My Noble Friend will recollect that the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts) recommended as follows:
Where under abnormal conditions the organisation is unable to make both ends meet it should be indemnified from public funds. We understand that this principle has already been accepted in the case of the Forces in Ireland, and the operations in North Russia, have been instanced as another case where the same principle might well have been applied. As regards Ireland, not only is canteen trading at a profit impossible in that country at present, but the concentration of troops there has its reflection in the reduction of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes' trade in the larger garrisons in England, where, nevertheless, it is necessary to maintain premises and staffs to cater for the details remaining, and to be prepared for a return to normal conditions. But in our opinion, the principle to which we have referred must only be followed with extreme caution, after careful investigation of each case.
Losses were incurred during 1919, 1920 and 1921 in North Russia and Iraq, but no payment from public funds in respect of them is anticipated. The losses in Ireland in respect of which, following the policy recommended by the Committee, a payment of £50,000 is about to be made, were about £68,000 in respect of the year 1920 only. No accounts are yet available for subsequent years and no decision to make any further payment has yet been taken. The appropriate heading in Army Estimates for any such payment is Head VI.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. LYLE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is able to state the nature of the projects of the various Australian States for the stimulation of British emigration to the Antipodes; whether the British Government is co-operating; and, if so, in what direction?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I understand that various projects are being considered by the Australian Governments. These are mostly concerned with land settlement and development. The Premier of South Australia has also publicly referred to a scheme for selecting 6,000 boys between 15 and 18 from this country, to be placed under careful supervision with selected farmers in South Australia. The British Government will be in a position to co-operate in such schemes, if and when the Bill announced in the Gracious Speech from the Throne be passed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do we have to pay the expense of sending these boys out?

Mr. AMERY: If we co-operate, we shall pay some share.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the official language in Palestine?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): As I stated in the House in July of last year, there are three official languages in Palestine—English, Arabic and Hebrew.

JEWS AND ARABS.

Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate proportion of Jews to Arabs in Palestine, and how many of the members of the Advisory Council are Jews and how many Arabs?

Mr. WOOD: Information as to the various elements in the population of Palestine are given on page 4 of the ad interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine which was presented to Parliament as Command Paper No. 1499 of 1921. The Advisory Council includes seven Arab and three Jewish members.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATMENT OF CHILDREN, HONG KONG.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the approximate number of mui tsai in the Colony of Hong Kong, including the British territory on the mainland, at the present time; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent or hinder their removal to other parts of China during the interval that will elapse between the Government's decision to abolish this form of slavery and its actually putting that decision into force?

Mr. WOOD: The number is between 8,000 and 9,000. My right hon. Friend has instructed the Governor to elaborate detailed arrangements necessary for carrying into effect the new policy in consultation with the societies concerned.
The Governor will no doubt consider what steps can best be taken to prevent muitsai from being removed from the Colony against their own wishes and interests.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would not it be much better if the Colonial Office instructed the Governor to see that the intention of the Government is not evaded by these girls being shipped off?

Mr. WOOD: That has already been done. I am afraid I did not make myself clear in my answer.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the Governor to consult with the Chinese Society for the Abolition of mui tsai, who will, no doubt, render any assistance that the Governor may want in this matter?

Mr. WOOD: Unless I am mistaken about the title of the society, that is one of the societies with which the Governor is already in consultation, but I will make sure.

Sir J. D. REES: Since the population of Hong Kong is almost entirely Chinese, is it possible to treat the matter in the manner suggested, and forbid the emigration of any members of that population?

Mr. WOOD: My hon. Friend knows that there is no question of forbidding voluntary emigration on the part of the Chinese population. What this question is directed to is a real possible evil which it is extremely desirable, if possible, to prevent.

Sir J. D. REES: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether adequate protection will be guaranteed by the local government to mui tsai girls who will be exposed to risks by the issue of the proposed proclamation?

Mr. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has instructed the Governor to take all possible steps, in conjunction with the voluntary societies, to meet the risks to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir J. D. REES: Since concubinage is regarded in the East as a higher status than prostitution, is there not grave danger that this step, however well intended, may precipitate these girls from the higher to the lower plane?

Mr. WOOD: Obviously the Governor, who is conversant with the state of civilisation on the spot, will have all the relevant facts in his mind when he deals with the problem.

Sir J. D. REES: Is any pressure being put on the Governor, or is he acting on his own initiative?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet had better read the statement made by the Colonial Secretary last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, BRITISH COLONIES.

Mr. L. MALONE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in possession of figures to show the numbers of unemployed persons in any or all parts of the British Empire out side the British Isles for 1913; and what are the most recent figures which he has received?

Mr. WOOD: I am not in possession of this information in a readily accessible form.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EX-PROFESSOR PENSIONERS, CORK.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the position of the ex-professor pensioners of the late Queen's College, Cork, now University College, Cork; whether he is aware that these pensions were formerly charged on the Consolidated Fund but were, about 1908, removed from the Consolidated Fund and were charged on the annual grant of £16,000 a year given by Parliament to University College, Cork; whether this grant of £16,000 a year will now be discontinued; and whether the British Government will in future pay or guarantee the payment of the pensions of the ex-professors in question?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first, second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards, the fourth part, this, with other financial matters, will be discussed
with the Provisional Government prior to the establishment of the Free State.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to ensure that the security of these men in their pensions is at least adequate to that which they enjoyed before?

POSTAGE STAMPS (SURCHARGE).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the surcharging on postage stamps now current in Ireland, whereby His Majesty's head is defaced, is executed in London or in Dublin?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): The overprinting is executed in Dublin.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to ask the authorities in Dublin to make this unsightly surcharge—as is done generally—at the top and bottom of the stamp, so as not deliberately to injure His Majesty's head? It can be perfectly well done at the top and bottom of the stamp.

INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. WATERSON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date on which the Trish Indemnity Bill will be introduced; and whether the proposed Commission to inquire into claims for compensation in respect of damage to property has yet been appointed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to introduce the Irish Indemnity Bill. He hopes to be able to make a definite statement regarding the appointment and constitution of the Commission referred to in the last part of the question very shortly.

Mr. WATERSON: Does not my right hon. Friend see the necessity of expediting the appointment of the Commission, seeing that trade is deflated in Ireland and that it would increase employment to get these works going again?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am fully aware of that, and no avoidable delay is existing.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a promise that it will be appointed before Easter?

Mr. DEVLIN: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing these names before the Commission functions?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot promise that, but full opportunity will be given on the Bill of Indemnity.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Bill of Indemnity come on this side of Easter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. HURD: 36.
asked the Home Secretary how the consumption of beer and stout and of spirits per head of the population in 1921 compares with that in 1913 on the basis of alcoholic content?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I have been asked to reply. Statistics of actual consumption of beer and stout and of spirits are not available, but the estimated quantities, measured in terms of proof spirit, per head of the population, retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in the years ended 31st December, 1913 and 1921 respectively, are as follow:—

—
1913.
1921.


Proof Galls.
Proof Galls.


Beer and Stout
…
2.61
1.9


Spirits
…
.70
.39

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this postwar beer there is no alcoholic content at all?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not so familiar with that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any representations against the proposal to have only one electoral register instead of two; and, if so, will he state the origin and nature of those representations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): My right hon. Friend understands that both the executive council of the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association have declared against the system of an annual register. He has also received representations on this matter from various Members of the House, who have requested him to treat their views as confidential. In the circumstances, therefore, I regret that I cannot properly add anything further to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham on the 21st instant.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does that refer to England only? Have any representations been received against this reform from Scotland?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am not aware of any except those to which I have just referred.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether, by the extended use of supplemental lists in the compilation of two half-yearly registers, the expense of these may be reduced so that their total cost will only slightly exceed that of one annual register on the old lines?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am considering this expedient, which, if practicable, would, at any rate, substantially reduce the difference in cost between the yearly and half-yearly systems of registration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

POOR LITIGANTS BILL.

Mr. ADAMSON: 44.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take steps to accelerate the passing into law of the Poor Litigants (Scotland) Bill, which was unanimously passed in this House in an earlier Session of this Parliament?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I would remind my right hon. Friend that the view taken in another place, when this Bill was considered there, was that if the matter was to be dealt with it ought to be by Amendment of the Standing Orders and not by Bill. In these circumstances, the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

GAME AND HEATHER BURNING COMMITTEE.

Major M. WOOD: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now come to a decision as to the adoption of the recommendations of the Game and Heather Burning Committee, which reported last year?

Mr. MUNRO: I have considered this Report, and I am having a Bill prepared which gives effect to certain of the recommendations made by the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will that Bill be introduced and passed? Will it be before the Easter Recess?

Mr. MUNRO: I cannot give any undertaking as regards that.

CORN SUBSIDY.

Major W. MURRAY: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of cases in which the Scottish Board of Agriculture has retained or is retaining the corn subsidy, now payable to small holders and ex-service men in Scotland, on the grounds that sums of various kinds are due to the Board by the smallholders concerned?

Mr. MUNRO: The Board have retained or are retaining the corn subsidy as a credit against debts due to them in 496 cases where agreement has been obtained. With reference to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on Thursday last, money due in respect of the subsidy will not be retained without agreement of the persons concerned, as the Board are now advised that retention is not competent in the classes of cases I then mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in deciding to ask teachers to contribute towards their superannuation, the Government considered applying the same principle to the Civil Service; and why they propose to treat differently the various classes of public servants?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative. The conditions of service of civil servants and teachers are widely different.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this differentiation is regarded by the teachers as a breach of the Burnham award, and will he have regard to that when framing legislation to give effect to these proposals?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware at all of that point of view.

Mr. THOMSON: It is true.

NATIONAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.

Mr. WISE: 88.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the representatives of the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council are all civil servants, and what is their rank?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Seventeen of the 27 members of the staff side are civil servants, their respective ranks being as follow:

Higher Clerical Officer.
Inspector of Taxes.
Assistant Constructor (Admiralty).
Sub-postmaster.
Officers of Customs and Excise (2).
Assistant Accountant-General.
Preventive Officer.
Established Shipwright.
Civil Assistant (Admiralty).
Principal Officer (temporary).
Assistant Secretary.
Chief Engineering Inspector (Post Office).
District Valuer.
Architect.
Sorter (Post Office).
Telegraphist.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

UNITED STATES ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the amount of money involved, in sterling, in the American demand for payment of the costs of the American Army of Occupation in Germany; whether this demand will affect the distribution and allocation of the moneys received from Germany now being made, and, if so, to what extent; and what is being done now with the periodical payments now being made by Germany?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount claimed is approximately 241 million dollars, which, at the present rate of exchange, is equivalent to about £54,773,000. In reply to the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to him on the 21st instant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he made no reply on that occasion?

Sir R. HORNE: On the contrary, I stated quite accurately what was the situation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he then took refuge in the fact that we had not had an official Note from the United States Government, and can he now say whether we are distributing the money we are receiving from Germany just as was the case before the Note arrived?

Sir R. HORNE: Just as I answered my hon. and gallant Friend on the previous occasion, the amount which is coming from Germany now is going into the hands of the Reparation Commission.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it the intention of the Reparation Commission to admit the preposterous claim of the United States?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to put in adjectives of that sort.

HOLY PLACES, PALESTINE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delay in ratifying or amending the Treaty of Sevres, he will urge the Allied and Associated Powers to bring into force such parts of the Treaty as are not controversial, such as the appointment of the chairman of a special commission to deal with the Christian holy places in Palestine by the Council of the League of Nations; and whether he will now hasten the establishment of this Commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The question of the appointment of a Chairman for the Holy Places Commission was before the Council of the League of Nations at the January Session. It is included again in the agenda for the coming Session. In the circumstances, I
do not feel it would be opportune for me to make any statement on the subject at the present stage.

PARIS CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any report on the conference at Paris on the Near Eastern situation; whether the Treaty of Sèvres has been or will be revised; whether the Angora Government has been or will be recognised as the result of this conference; when a statement will be made to the House and an opportunity given for a discussion on these subjects; and whether the Greeks and/or Turks have accepted the armistice proposed by the Allies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A full statement of the conclusions of the Conference at Paris and of the reasons for their proposals has appeared in the Press this morning. The Greek Government has accepted the armistice. There has not yet been time to receive a reply from the Turks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the third part of my question, as to opportunities for discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As at present advised I do not think there is any necessity for me to add anything, or that I could usefully add anything to the full statement in the Press.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it very wrong that we should always be referred to the newspapers and not be given an opportunity for debate on these policies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Allied Ministers meeting in Paris issued the statement, which was approved by them in consequence, to the Press of all their countries. If the House of Commons desires what has already appeared in the Press to be presented as a White Paper, of course I will arrange it, but I hope they will not regard it as an act of disrespect on the part of the Government that they concurred in a publication which was addressed to all the nations interested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How are we to discuss what appears only in the Press?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a White Paper? I think it very desirable that it should be issued.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. When the right hon. Gentleman asks for it, I could not resist the claim, though I am surprised that so keen an advocate of economy should suggest it.

Major-General SEELY: Has it not always been the custom hitherto to issue such statements to this House first, and to the Press afterwards; and what is the reason for this new departure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, it has not been the custom hitherto—

Major-General SEELY: It has.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to give me information, and is not seeking it, perhaps I had better sit down. I was going to say it has not been the custom hitherto, with possibly rare exceptions—I am not sure that there is any precedent—for Ministers meeting in conference to issue a statement of this kind at all.

Lord R. CECIL: Before the War, was there not an absolute rule, and a rule which this House was exceedingly tenacious of having preserved, that nothing should appear in the Press of this kind which had not been communicated to the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should doubt very much, if my Noble Friend turns up the records of the Berlin Conference, that he will find every decision of the Berlin Conference was communicated to the House before it was published officially by the Conference itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

Mr. HASLAM: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of the United Kingdom at the forthcoming Conference at Genoa will insist upon the stoppage of further issues of fiduciary paper money in those European countries where the issues are now apparently without limit, as a preliminary to any agreement that may be considered with a view of developing business relationships between the various countries concerned or respecting the payment of reparations by Germany?

Mr. YOUNG: The representatives of the United Kingdom will certainly do their utmost to secure the cessation of the issue of uncovered paper money in Europe at the earliest possible moment. Proposals to this end are included in the draft programme which the British representatives are preparing for Genoa.

Mr. LYLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the resolutions at the Genoa Conference will need the ratification of all the Powers interested before they take effect; and, in that case, why the Japanese Government is alone of extra-European nations represented in the absence of America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is impossible for me to state in advance what procedure will be adopted at the Genoa Conference as regards the manner of giving effect to any of the decisions at which it may arrive. Japan will be represented as one of the Powers composing the Supreme Council which, at its meeting at Cannes, passed the resolution in favour of convoking the Genoa Conference.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether M. Poincaré promised ratification by the French Government before effect was given to the decisions reached?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My knowledge on that subject is, I think, gained from the public Press. I do not think I have had any communications. I was not asked as to the action of a particular Government, but as to the action of all Governments, and I cannot answer for all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC, STATE MANAGEMENT.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether the sum of £40 required on account, and the £100 shown as total Estimates for 1922–23, in Item 30, page 2, White Paper No. 33, represents the full amount it is estimated will be expended upon the State management districts during the forthcoming financial year, or whether it is intended as a token Vote; and, if so, will he take steps to publish full accounts in future?

Sir J. BAIRD: The figure in question is a token Vote, as to which, as for other items in Class II, detailed Estimates will follow in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, TIPTON.

Mr. A. SHORT: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent explosion at Tipton?

Sir J. BAIRD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has decided to order a formal investigation under Section 66 of the Explosives Act, 1875.

Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. Gentleman say who the assessors will be? Who are to act?

Sir J. BAIRD: I cannot give that information now.

Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry will be held?

Sir J. BAIRD: There will be no delay. The decision will be carried into effect at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. G. THORNE: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the, disastrous explosion which recently took place near Dudley, he is satisfied that adequate precautions are being taken against the risks of explosion in other places where similar operations are being carried on?

Sir J. BAIRD: Inquiries are being made as to the destination of the ammunition disposed of by the Disposal Board for the purpose of being broken up. These inquiries are not yet quite, complete, but according to the information at present before me, the operations are being carried on in all other cases under Home Office licence and in accordance with the Home Office requirements.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Why was it that the Home Office remained unaware of the existence of this factory?

Sir J. BAIRD: It was not reported. So far as we know, it is the only case of the kind. It was not reported to us that the ammunition had been disposed of to these people. We are taking steps to ensure that a similar event will not occur in future.

Mr. WATERSON: Would it not be better for the Government to break up its own ammunition instead of leaving the work to private speculators?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is it not the duty of the Disposal Board to ascertain where they send ammunition and to report accordingly?

Sir J. BAIRD: That question ought to be addressed to the Treasury which has control of the Disposal Board, and the same remark applies to the question of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations on the matter?

Sir J. BAIRD: Certainly. We are taking every possible step to investigate this horrible disaster, and to prevent the recurrence of such an event.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING HOURS, LONDON.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the closing time for public houses in the Borough of Finsbury has been fixed by the licensing justices to be nine o'clock whereas the closing time for boroughs surrounding Finsbury is 10 o'clock; whether it is possible to bring this anomaly to the notice of the licensing justices with a view to further consideration of the matter, in view of the great inconvenience to the public in Finsbury; and whether he is aware that this closing hour of nine p.m. means that in the summer these public houses have to close two hours before dark?

Sir J. BAIRD: I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Sundays. I am aware that the justices of the Finsbury licensing district have fixed the permitted hours at six to nine p.m. on Sundays: but that district includes, besides the Borough of Finsbury, the Borough of Islington, which is one of the largest of the surrounding boroughs. The other adjoining boroughs are in licensing districts for which the hours have been fixed at seven to 10 p.m. There can be no doubt that the licensing justices of Finsbury had all the facts before them when making their decision: and there is no power to alter that decision in the current year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENTS, FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 43.
asked the Home Secretary in view of the large increase in the number of preventive accidents in factories and workshops during the year ending 1920, namely, 12,750 over the previous year, what stops he intends to take to reduce the number of such accidents; and, for this purpose, will he consider the question of employing additional factory inspectors?

Sir J. BAIRD: The increase to which my Noble Friend refers is the increase in the number of all reported accidents, not in the number of preventible accidents, which is a very different matter. It is doubtful, moreover, how far the increase in the number of reported accidents for 1920 represented an actual increase. The number reported for 1919 was surprisingly low, having regard to the trade activity of that year, and there was good reason to think, for the reasons explained in the Chief Inspector's Annual Report, that there had been great laxity in reporting accidents during that year.
The number of accidents fluctuates considerably from year to year according to trade activity and other circumstances, and an increase in one year may be followed by a corresponding or greater reduction the following year. This is what has actually happened in 1921. The rise of 12,000 odd in 1920 has been followed by a fall, due no doubt partly to trade depression, of over 46,000. I need only add that the Factory Department is not relaxing in any degree its efforts to improve the safety conditions in the factories, and I would refer my Noble Friend to the account given in the Chief Inspector's reports of the work which is being done in this direction.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that an employer can be prosecuted and fined unless he report an accident that takes place in a factory or workshop?

Sir J. BAIRD: I should like notice of such a question before answering authoritatively.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER RECESS.

Mr. L. MALONE: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the House will adjourn
for Easter and the duration of the Recess?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be able to make a definite announcement at the beginning of next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DEBTS (CANCELLATION).

Mr. ATKEY: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that statements in the Press have been made that the British Government are entering into negotiations for the cancelment of War debts; and will he give an undertaking that the sanction of Parliament shall be given before the British Government is committed to any definite undertaking to cancel the debts of our Allies?

Sir R. HORNE: I have seen some statements in the Press on the lines indicated in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16th December last by the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, in which an assurance was given that should this question become one of practical importance, a full opportunity would be given for Parliamentary discussion of any such proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (EXPORT CREDIT).

Mr. WISE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Portugal has been granted a credit of £3,000,000; and, if so, what is the security against it?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I presume the hon. Member refers to arrangements made by the Export Credits Department in connection with the financing of goods to be exported from this country to Portugal. A credit for £3,000,000 has been sanctioned in favour of the Banco Nacional Ultramarino, and will be operated through that bank. Portuguese Treasury Bills for the amount named will be delivered to the Export Credits Department. It has been arranged that the remittances from the Portuguese Financial Agency in Brazil shall be
charged to provide by monthly instalment for the liquidation of the bills, and in the event of these remittances falling short of the amount required in each month, the Portuguese Government has undertaken to make up the deficit from the general revenue of the State. The transaction is also guaranteed by the Banco Nacional Ultramarino.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-EMPEROR KARL.

Mr. WISE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Great Britain has been asked to guarantee any yearly payment to the ex-Emperor Karl?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): At a Conference in Paris of Representatives of the Successor States, which is now deliberating on the payment of an allowance to the Ex-Emperor, the question was raised whether the Principal Allied Powers would contribute. His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris was instructed to make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no intention of bearing any share of the expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (REVENUE).

The following question appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KILEY:

60. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act from 1st October, 1921, to 31st March, 1922; what proportion was received from goods imported from France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, America, and Japan; and what amount has been refunded by his Department as having been paid under protest or otherwise?

Mr. KILEY: This question should not have appeared until 4th April, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the figures up to date, I shall be glad to have them.

Sir R. HORNE: The total amount of duty collected under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, from the 1st October, 1921, to the 25th March, 1922, inclusive, is £134,235. Of this amount £19,864, £4,112, £2,540, £3,901, £27,607, and £640 was collected in respect
of goods consigned from France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, the United States, and Japan, respectively. As regards the last part of the question, approximately £1,500 has been repaid.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to the cost of the collection of these sums?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE OBLIGATIONS (FUNDING).

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered that part of the Economy Committee's Report which suggests that the pension and like obligations of the State should be placed on a funded basis; if so, whether his conclusions are that such an alteration would result in a saving to the public purse; if he has not yet decided his course with regard to the Budget, whether he thinks that an inquiry into the practicability of such recommendation would be desirable; whether he would invite the opinions of leading financial or actuarial experts on the matter; and, having regard to the interest which the public is taking in the suggestion that pensions should be funded, he will inform the House of the results of his inquiry if such should take place?

Sir R. HORNE: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the conclusion of the Committee on National Expenditure in regard to this question was that it was outside its terms of reference because it involved considerations of Budget policy. In these circumstances, I must ask to be excused from making any statement on it at present.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give it consideration; and is he aware it would help him to reduce the. Income Tax, and that unless the Income Tax is reduced he will not come back to the House?

Sir R. HORNE: I am considering it very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue received from the Income Tax
which is collected from securities yielding a fixed rate of interest for 1920–21, according to the Income Tax assessments; and what percentage does this figure bear to the total Income Tax received for the year?

Sir R. HORNE: The information sought is not available. The hon. Member will appreciate that in the case of the majority of securities of the class referred to, Income Tax is deducted at the source, and an inquiry as to the net amount received by the Exchequer after provision is made for repayments due could not be successfully carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR COMMITMENTS (LIQUIDATION).

Sir G. COLLINS: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the figure of £65,705,000 against the item liquidation of war commitments under the head of special receipts and expenditure in the Budget White Paper has been increased by Supplementary Estimates; and, if so, by what amount?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, Sir. The Budget figure of £65,705,000 special expenditure has been increased by approximately £55,800,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTAL RATES (REDUCTION).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General whether there is any prospect of a speedy reduction of the present postal rates?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The matter is under consideration. I am unable to make any announcement at present.

SUNDAY COLLECTION.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to restore, at an early date, the Sunday night collection, as a first step towards the restoration of full Sunday postal facilities?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Captain Hotchkin) on the 22nd March.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: When are we likely to have a statement on this very important matter?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As the Government fully realises its importance, no avoidable delay will be allowed.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking not to re-introduce Sunday work until the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will consider what my hon. Friend has said.

IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.

Mr. HURD: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General what measure of co-operation he has been now able to secure from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India in providing an Imperial wireless chain; and what reply he is making to the urgent representations sent to him by the Empire Press Union on behalf of the newspaper press of the Empire regarding the inadequacy of the Post Office scheme?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As regards the co-operation of the Dominions, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question yesterday, to which I have nothing to add. I would point out, however, that the Imperial wireless scheme was authorised by the Cabinet on the recommendation of a Committee appointed by the Cabinet and was endorsed by the Imperial Conference.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no information whatever was given to me yesterday as to the extent of the co-operation secured between the Imperial Government and the Dominions in this matter?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have read the answer, and I have nothing to add to the informatioi given in it.

ORKNEY ISLANDS (CABLE).

Sir MALCOLM SMITH: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there has been a breakdown in telegraphic communication with the North Isles of Orkney since 3rd February, causing loss and inconvenience to traders and to the general public; and will he take steps without delay to have the cable repaired and communication restored?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The two submarine cables between Kirkwall and the North Isles of the Orkneys became faulty on the 31st January and 6th February respectively. The Post Office cable ships are at present employed on repairs to important cross-Channel cables. Every effort will be made to restore communication with the North Isles at the earliest possible date. I regret I cannot at present name a date when the Orkney cables can be repaired.

TELEPHONES (SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. HOLMES: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Telephone Service that the charges should be immediately reduced by 10 per cent. on subscribers' accounts provisionally and without prejudice to any subsequent rearrangement to carry out the Select Committee's recommendations?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The reduction of telephone rates and other Post Office charges is under the consideration of the Government. I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

Mr. HOLMES: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this recommendation of the Committee will only be of value if it be immediately put into operation?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That same consideration is pressed on me in regard to all proposals for reduction of postal charges.

Sir W. DAVISON: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General whether immediate steps will be taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Telephone Service?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am considering the Report of the Select Committee, and I hope to make a statement on the subject in introducing the Post Office Estimates.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling which exists that these reforms have already been much too long delayed?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Some of the reforms recommended were put into practice by the Post Office some months ago.

POSTAL SERVICE, PATHHEAD.

Mr. WALLACE: 77.
asked the Post master-General whether he has yet completed his inquiries regarding the closing of Pathhead Post Office as a telegraph office, and, if so, with what result; and is he aware that on 11th March a telegram answering a case of sudden and serious illness was dispatched from Cowdenbeath at 12.58 p.m., received in Kirkcaldy at 1.3 p.m., but not delivered in Pathhead till 1.50?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The inquiries show that there is no appreciable difference between the average time occupied in the delivery of telegrams at Pathhead from Kirkcaldy under the new arrangement and the time formerly occupied in their transmission to and delivery from the Pathhead Post Office. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that telephone subscribers can obtain their telegrams by telephone with consequent acceleration in delivery. The telegram to which my hon. Friend refers cannot be traced, but if he will furnish me with the delivered copy I will have the delay investigated.

Mr. WALLACE: Why should people have to employ their own telephones to assist the Post Office in the delivery of telegrams?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot agree that delivery by telephone is an improper form of delivery. It is in the interests of the receiver of the telegram.

Mr. WALLACE: 78.
asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that no letters are collected in the Pathhead district of Kirkcaldy after 6.30 p.m., and that letters posted in Kirkcaldy after 6 a.m. on Saturday morning are not delivered in the northern part of the town till Monday; and whether he will institute a more adequate service for this industrial town with a population of 40,000?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member.

POST OFFICE, STRATFORD ROAD, S.W.

Sir W. DAVISON: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition, signed by over 500 electors in South Kensington, asking that the post office at 4, Stratford Road, S.W., should be reopened; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have received the petition, and I regret that with due regard to economy I am unable to comply with it. There are seven post offices in the locality, of which three are within about 600 yards of the Stratford Road site.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this post office, which was in existence for 60 years before the War, has always been self-supporting, and that there is no other post office within half a mile of it?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am afraid my hon. Friend's quarrel must be with the map and with the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

OPEN-AIR AND MENTALLY-DEFECTIVE SCHOOLS.

Sir J. D. REES: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the cost per head of the open-air schools and mentally-defective schools; and whether any official reports have been issued upon the education given in the latter case and its results?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The average cost per child during the year ended 31st March, 1921, of schools for mentally-defective children and of open-air schools maintained by local education authorities and voluntary bodies, and certified by the Board, was as follows:


Schools for mentally-defective children.
£


Local Education Authority Residential Schools
95


Local Education Authority Day Schools
27


Non-Local Education Authority Residential Schools
62


Open-air Schools.



Local Education Authority Residential Schools
97


Local Education Authority Day Schools
35


Non-Local Education Authority Residential Schools
86

As regards the education given in the schools for mentally-defective children, a full account appears in Section VII (page 98 and onwards) of the Report of the chief medical officer of the Board for 1917.

BLIND AND DEAF (SCHOOLS).

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the operation of Circular 1,245 of the Board of Education, which limits their expenditure on the blind and deaf in 1922–23 to those of the current year, will prevent the attendance of some such children at suitable schools; that the Manchester Education Committee has already decided, in the cases of blind or deaf children waiting for admission to suitable schools, that such children can only be sent as those at present in schools leave at the age of 16; and whether, because of the danger of individual blind or deaf children suffering the loss of their educational training, which is their only hope in life, he will withdraw the circular referred to?

Mr. FISHER: Circular 1,245, which was issued in January, 1922, conveyed a warning, not a decision, as to possible restrictions in 1922–23 on expenditure on special schools, not for the blind and deaf only, whose education necessarily demands an exceptional measure of individual attention, but for all types of defective children. I am fully alive to the needs of blind and deaf children, and hope that by the exercise of greater economy over the whole field sufficient provision for their education may still be made.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ACCOUNTS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 96.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the new form of keeping the education accounts of local authorities for the year beginning 1st April, 1921, was not received by the authorities until 23rd December, 1921, and that the preparation of the accounts in the new form for the current year would require that all this year's entries should be analysed and dissected and would involve much labour and serious expense; whether he has received protests from the executive committee of the Association of Education Committees and from the Education I Committee of the County Councils
Association; and whether, without prejudice to the question of the eventual adoption of the new form he will, in order to save the considerable labour and expense involved, give directions that the proposed new form shall not come into operation during the current year?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir Alfred Mond): The form referred to is not a form of keeping accounts, but a form for an annual return. The return is for the year ending on the 31st March, and local authorities are not required to recast their accounts for the past year. Further, the Board of Education will be prepared to accept returns for that year if they are as complete and accurate as the existing accounts will permit and to waive such of the details as cannot readily be given. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not think it is necessary to postpone the use of the new form.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the recasting of the accounts which it is necessary to make involves great expense in the current year?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the international company for the construction of the port of Tangier, established before the War, in what proportions the Powers were interested originally; whether this company is still in existence; and, if so, what are the present proportions of the interest of the several Powers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: When the company was originally formed, the proportional holdings of the various Powers was as follows:






Per cent.


France
…
…
…
30


Great Britain
…
…
…
20


Spain
…
…
…
20


Germany
…
…
…
20


Austria
…
…
…
3


Other Powers
…
…
…
7


The company is still in existence. The Austrian and German shares have been taken over by the Shereefian Government. Otherwise the proportional interest of the Powers in the company remains the same.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Does not the taking over of the Austrian and German shares by the Shereefian Government really mean that the control is taken over by France?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think I can add to the answer I have given.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not most important, in reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), that France should not be given a monopoly at Tangier, especially in view of its nearness to Gibraltar?

Captain COOTE: Will the British Government take any steps to put an end to the anomalous position of the administration in Tangier?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is hoped that a conference in regard to Tangier will take place at no distant date.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. LYLE: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, taking the present number of old age pensioners, he will state the cost to the State of fixing the maximum of £50 as the amount of income which these pensioners might enjoy without any reduction in their weekly allowance of 10s.?

Mr. YOUNG: I would remind the hon. Member that, subject to certain conditions, Old Age Pensions are at present payable to persons whose means as calculated under the Old Age Pensions Acts do not exceed £49 17s. 6d. a year. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed my hon. Friend in reply to his question of the 23rd ultimo, the extra cost of paying Old Age Pensions of 10s. per week to all existing pensioners would be about £753,000 a year for the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER CURRENCY, GERMANY.

Mr. HASLAM: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the method by which fiduciary paper money is issued in Germany and by what authority it is issued; if there is any limit to the quantity issued and, if so, what is the gauge of that limit; whether such issues are made to private firms or to syndicates
with a view of purchasing raw materials from abroad; if so, is he aware that such facilities and issues of paper money-enable persons, firms, or the Government thereby to earn large profits on the transactions by the purchase of good money in Great Britain and the United States; and is he aware that depreciation of currency has the effect of lowering wages and other remunerations, thus leaving a larger margin of profit to producers in Germany which may be utilised in the further promotion of industries?

Mr. YOUNG: Fiduciary paper money is issued in Germany mainly by the Reichsbank, but partly through the Loan Banks which were established in 1914. It is issued by way of ordinary banking operations (advances, discounts of Government and other bills, &c). I understand that the limits which existed before the War have been suspended. The Reparation Commission is taking active steps to secure an improvement in the matter of paper currency issues in Germany as part of the general question of the German reparation liability. I am aware that the depreciation of the currency often has the effect of lowering real wages and increasing the margin of profit, and particularly of paper profits, but as to whether such increased paper profits are really available for use in the further promotion of industries I have some doubts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROSYTH DOCKYARD (REVALUATION).

Mr. WALLACE: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a date can now be given when the revaluation of Rosyth for rating purposes will be undertaken?

Mr. YOUNG: Considerable progress has already been made with the revaluation, though the work has been delayed by the changes now taking place at the dockyard. It is hoped that the results will be available for discussion with the local authorities in May.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYESTUFFS ADVISORY LICENSING COMMITTEE.

Mr. KILEY: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why merchant importers of dyes are not given representa-
tion on the Dyestuffs' Advisory Licensing Committee, seeing that all other interests are represented thereon?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The constitution of the Licensing Committee is prescribed by Section 2, sub-section 3, of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, and was fully discussed during the passage of the Act through this House. I would refer the hon. Member to Vol. 135, No. 154, of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since that came into operation there have been numerous complaints by the merchants as to the way in which the licences have been distributed, and is it not possible to have a revision of the arrangements whereby they can be represented on the Committee?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that anything has happened to shake the strength of the arguments then presented.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGE STATISTICS.

Mr. HASLAM: 94.
asked the Minister of Labour the approximate average percentage of increase in wages payable according to the latest Returns (hourly rates) in respect of bricklayers, masons (banker hands), carpenters and joiners, plumbers, plasterers, painters, and labourers, respectively, over the rates paid in August, 1914, also similar figures in relation to the wages paid in the engineering and shipbuilding industries, in each case showing the average percentage of increase, or otherwise, in wages, stating rates of datal wages and piece wages separately, where convenient, and the present percentage increase of the cost of living?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The comparison of wages which my hon. Friend desires involves a detailed statistical statement. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the current issue of the "Labour Gazette," in which he will find the latest published information, and I will also send him a tabular summary giving further details. As regards cost of living, the index figure at 1st March, the latest date for which it has been computed, was 86 per cent. above the pre-War level.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSION APPEALS TRIBUNAL.

Mr. J. GUEST: 81.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, on an application for a pension being refused by the officials of the Ministry and the case being referred to the Appeals Tribunal for final decision, any statement from the officials dealing with the case, or from the Ministry, is forwarded along with the man's papers to the tribunal; and, if so, whether a copy of such statement is supplied to the man prior to the hearing or at any time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. A précis of the material facts, including not only a reasoned statement of the grounds on which the claim has been rejected by the Ministry, but also particulars of any evidence in support of the claim which has come to light, is forwarded in each case with the man's papers to the tribunal. Two copies of this précis are, at the same time, sent to the appellant.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether King Feisal is sending a mission to this country, under General Haddad, to negotiate further regarding the proposed Treaty between the State of Iraq and the British Government; whether it is proposed to alter further the proposed draft Mandate for Mesopotamia to be submitted by the British Government to the Council of the League of Nations; whether the proposed Treaty with King Feisal will also be submitted, together with the Mandate, to the Council of the League; whether the proposed Treaty will be submitted to Parliament and published before it is ratified by the British Government; and whether representations have been received from Iraq that the early conclusion of the terms, both of the Treaty and of the Mandate, is desirable in the interests of the peace, order, and good government of Iraq?

Mr. WOOD: With regard to the first part of the question, I am informed by the High Commissioner for Iraq that General Haddad is coming to England and that
King Feisal wishes him to be regarded as his personal representative while in this country. There is no question of sending a mission to discuss the Treaty. With regard to the second part, the draft Mandate in its present form was submitted to the League of Nations, as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, some months ago. I hope that there will be no occcasion to suggest further modifications in its wording. As to part three, His Majesty's Government are bound by Article 18 of the Covenant, if for no other reason, to submit the Treaty to the League of Nations. With regard to the fourth part, as I have already informed the hon. Member for Leyton East on 9th February, the answer is in the affirmative. As regards the fifth part of the question, I can assure the hon. Member that no representations are required from Iraq or elsewhere to convince His Majesty's Government of the importance of an early settlement of these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — NOTICES OF MOTION.

EX-SBETICE MEN'S PENSIONS.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the great reduction now taking place in the pensions of ex-service men and their dependants, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. G. White.]

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the case of pre-War pensioners, and to move a Resolution.—[Rear-Admiral Adair.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of workmen's compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

HARBOURS, DOCKS, AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL,

"to amend and extend the duration of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920," presented by Mr. NEAL; supported by Mr. Hilton Young; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) BILL,

"to abolish certain rights and privileges of the city of Oxford and of the city of St. Albans in connection with the sale of wine and the granting of licences therefor, and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. HILTON YOUNG; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

MAGUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords] AND BABINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the ease of Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

WORTHING CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Denison-Pender and Mr. Gregory; and had
appointed in substitution: Mr. Carr and Sir Douglas Newton.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (MARRIED WOMEN).

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the British Nationality and Status of Alien Acts, 1914 and 1918, so far as affects Married Women.
The object of this Bill is to amend the Statute law by which a woman, whether she desires it or not, has to take the nationality of her husband on marriage. This Statute law is of comparatively modern date. By the Common law of England, marriage does not affect the nationality of a woman. A British woman, on marrying an alien, remains a British subject; and, on the other hand, an alien woman, on marrying a British subject, remains an alien. The first infringement of this rule was made in the year 1844, when it was provided that an alien woman, on marrying a British subject, should take British nationality, and so matters remained until the year 1870, when, by the Act of that year, it was further provided, for the first time, indeed, in history, that a British woman, on marrying an alien lost her British nationality, and became an alien. Those provisions were continued by the Act of 1914—an Act, I may say, that was passed very hastily, and without much consideration, upon the eve of the Great War.
Much has happened since 1914. The whole position of women, politically and socially, has been fundamentally changed. I need not go through the details. It is enough for my purpose to say that, by an Act passed in 1919, most of the disqualifications owing to sex or marriage were removed. As regards married women especially—because it is with married women that this Bill deals—in former days their position was anomalous in the extreme. Many of the anomalies, especially as regards property, have been removed by the State. A good many anomalies remain which, in the opinion of many, ought to be removed, and this Bill deals with some of the most oppressive. In the first place, as regards British women, the Bill restores to them the right which they lost in 1870 of retain-
ing their British nationality on marriage with an alien, and it further provides that women who have lost their British nationality by marriage shall regain it, unless they desire to remain aliens.
The Bill provides, as regards alien women, that they shall not by marriage with a British subject ipso facto become a British subject, but it leaves it open for them to apply in the usual way and under the usual conditions for a certificate of British naturalisation. At the same time there is the safeguard to alien women who have already become British subjects by marriage. I may say that this Bill is supported by 59 women's organisations in the United Kingdom, in the Dominions, in Southern Rhodesia, and in East Africa. Of those 59 organisations some 29 are in the United Kingdom. There is one other reason peculiar to this subject to which I need not at length refer; one other reason why I venture to think the House should allow this Bill to be introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Since the War we have come to recognise in a way we never did before the great value and distinctive privilege of British nationality. It is a privilege not lightly to be granted and not lightly to be lost. It is not easy to-day to justify the continuance of legislation whereby on the one hand a British woman by the simple act of marriage loses the privilege of British nationality, and whereby, on the other hand, an alien woman by the mere act of marriage acquires this privilege, without taking the oath of allegiance or complying with those other conditions on which the rights of British nationality are normally granted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Butcher, Major Hills, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Pennefather, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Lord Robert Cecil, Mrs. Wintringham, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Colonel Penry Williams, and Mr. Cowan.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL,

"to amend the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, 1914 and 1918, so far as affects Married Women," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the. Bill be now read the Third time."

EDUCATION.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to raise the question of the provision for education in this country. Some four years ago the country was encouraged by the passing of a measure called the Education Act, 1918. That Act passed with the general approval of the country at large, and it had eventually, in unusual measure, the support of this House. The Education Act, 1918, as I have been interested to observe, has been used by speakers on behalf of the party opposite at the various by-elections as an example of their effort at reconstruction in the country. After having secured votes at various by-elections by virtue of this Act of Parliament, we now find that Education Act lying absolutely derelict upon the Statute Book. The position is even worse than that, for not only is the Education Act, 1918, not being put into operation, but, as a matter of fact, various Orders are going out from the Board of Education which seem to tend to prevent various administrative bodies up and down the country acting in accordance with the statutory obligations of that Act of Parliament.
4.0 P.M.
May I raise this point: It is to me, anyhow, as one who has belonged to that honourable profession, the teaching profession, a source of no small amount of bitterness to observe that this kind of operation is proceeding in the country, and under the ægis of the Board of Education, presided over by one who—perhaps he will forgive me for calling him so—is a colleague in the teaching profession. He is regarded, and rightly regarded, as a distinguished leader in the education world, and I am bound to say that I observe with very great misgiving the fact that he is giving way so frequently to those who are out for what
they call economy. I had the advantage the other day of participating in a public debate of a political character outside these walls, and in the course of public discussion after the debate a professor of a Welsh university who, I admit, is not particularly friendly to the Government, ventured to make this observation: that the Government had got the country into a fearful financial morass, and having got it there, he said, they turned to their masters and said: "Good masters, what shall we do to save?" I imagine the Scriptural answer to that would be something like this: "Spend all thou hast, and take from the poor!" Anyhow, I am unable to arrive at any different reading of the Geddes Report, All the Members of the House will be familiar with the terms of that Report. It divides the various national services into two main divisions. One has reference to the fighting services, and the other to what they call, quite rightly, the social services. I observed with some interest that when last week the House was discussing national expenditure upon the fighting services various Members, interested professionally in the upkeep of those services, under the leadership of a very distinguished general, put up a very stiff fight for expenditure upon them. We look this afternoon to receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education some little encouragement in making a fight for the social services, the services that stand for reconstruction, the services that, after all, are going to make possible that new world of which his distinguished leader has so frequently spoken in the country.
I have made, I hope, a very honest effort to understand the basic idea of the Geddes Report, and I am forced to the conclusion that in some unaccountable way the gentlemen who constituted the Geddes Committee expect education to become some sort of avenue whereby we can make profits. They seem to speak of education as though it can be made to pay financially. You cannot bring the ethics and the practices of the counting-house into the elementary schools or into the secondary schools either. We hear that there is a religion of the five per cents. I do not know whether there is or there is not, but there certainly can be no education of the five per cents.
Hon. Gentlemen opposed to education frequently sneer that it is becoming ineffective and futile. I have in my hand an interesting return which enables me to prove that even looked at from the point of view of £ s. d., expenditure upon education does produce a real substantial return. The curve of crime in this country illustrates the very remarkable fact that since the Education Act of 1872 was passed, and since the main body of working-class children have been allowed to enter the portals of the temple of education, the number of convictions for crime of various kinds has declined very remarkably. May I give some of the figures? In 1870 the number of committals to various reformatory and industrial schools was something like 2,924. After having gone up a good deal, they came down in 1010 to 5,536, and in 1920 to 3,196. In 1870 there were committed to prison 8,619 boys and 1,379 girls, making a total of 10,000 boys and girls. In 1910 only 48 boys and three girls were committed to prison, and in 1919, out of a very much larger population, let the House remember, only 25 boys and no girls were committed to prison. That is fairly eloquent proof that elementary education has had a very substantial result in raising the tone and moral of the country generally. It has made better citizens, and, through making better citizens, has produced a return to the State that cannot be computed in mere terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
We who sit on this side of the House hold it as an inalienable right that every child born in the State should be guaranteed an absolutely full and free education to the utmost ability of the State to give it, and to that end we make two points: First, an efficient system of education must provide efficient and well-trained teachers. We believe that you cannot secure an efficient system of education unless the teachers whom you employ are not only properly educated, but are also well trained and well paid. The suggestion made in the Gcddes Report in regard to compelling teachers to submit to a five per cent. reduction of their salaries for the provision of a pension fund is, in our judgment, an indirect method of getting behind the Burnham Committee's Report. It is rather mean tactics. It is playing the
game rather low to carry through indirectly a reduction in the teachers' salaries after the Government itself has set up a Standing Committee representative of all sides interested to discuss the matter.
I now turn to the Geddes Report itself, and I should like to draw from it some curious comparisons illustrating the point of view of the gentlemen on the Committee, as to whom I have no unkind words to say. I daresay that they are highly efficient people in business, but to my mind they are thoroughly incompetent to discuss the question of education at all. They draw attention to the forecast of expenditure for next year upon elementary education, and they point out that, taking the average attendance, the expenditure per child amounts to £12 7s. 6d., which, be it observed, covers salaries of teachers, loan charges, schools for defective children, medical inspection and treatment, provision of meals, administration and other expenditure. The expenditure upon secondary education, covering like services, amounts to £18 14s. per head. This, the Geddes Report declares, is one of the means whereby saving can be effected. I absolutely challenge such a statement. The point of view of the Geddes Committee is that this cost is excessive.
May I compare the expenditure upon the education of working-class children in the elementary schools with the expenditure upon the education of children of the very well-to-do at Dartmouth. Everyone knows that cadets are drawn from the well-to-do and wealthy classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Report itself, page 24, they will observe that there are very few students in the college being maintained out of other than their own private resources. The cost amounts to £462 per cadet, exclusive, be it observed, of expenditure upon the College building, whereas school buildings are included in the £12 7s. 6d. per child in the elementary schools. Let me give another example. There were at Dartmouth 445 students, and they had a staff of 529. They take some looking after there. Out of a staff of 529, 41 were teachers; 41 into 445 gives us an average of between 10 and 11 per teacher. The Geddes Committee go into our elementary schools and triumphantly
declare that there are only 32 pupils per teacher, and, presumably because these children belong to working-class homes, the average per teacher must be raised to 50. Speaking with some little knowledge of the teacher myself, and as one who has had children with him in the class room, I say that this is an absolutely impossible proposition. You cannot educate children like that. You merely talk to them; you do not educate them. If that is going to be the basis of our future education, then it is going to be of a very disastrous kind indeed. May I make a further comparison? When it comes to training reserves in the Army, we have no such compunction about cost. Under the present system, boys in the Reserve receive three years' training, serve seven years with the colours, and then two years in the Reserves. The cost of training each of these boys for a period of three years is £741. The cost of training the young teacher for a university college to take charge of young minds in elementary schools only amounts to £79, and here are boys being trained to blow out other people's brains and the cost per year is £200 each. I think the time has come when we should challenge this philosophy entirely.
May I take another point? I have just touched lightly on the proposal for introducing a system of larger classes into the schools. I am speaking now as one who has had the most acute sympathy with the children who are far removed from the schools in the more populated area and who live far away on the countryside. The proposal of the Geddes Report with regard to closing schools with an attendance of under 100 is a monstrous proposition. I am a member of the Glamorgan Education Committee, and I know that in my area there are villages quite four miles from the nearest school. How can you expect children under seven years of age to walk mile after mile, or to walk four miles to school and four miles back, and often sit in their wet clothes all day. I protest against such a monstrous proposal.
May I make one last point? The Geddes Report makes the suggestion that the time has come when the parents of children who belong to affluent homes should pay for the cost of the education of their children on account of their affluence. Personally, I believe in a democratic system of education, and I
think the whole of our scholarships should be made as free as possible to the sons of the rich as well as to the sons of the poor. I hate any differentiation in regard to an educational system, and I think the Minister of Education will agree with me on that point. I want to point out that if we are to accept so invidious a method of distinguishing between one child and another, has the time not arrived when those who get education for the higher posts in the Army and Navy should not make a far more substantial contribution than the modest sum they are now paying?
The scholarship system has been the only method whereby the sons of poor parents might have a chance of secondary and higher education. If I may be allowed a personal reference, it is that probably I myself would have gone into a coal pit and remained there had it not been for the fact that I was fortunate enough to secure a scholarship of this kind. These scholarships are hopelessly inadequate in number, and I can recall boys who were endowed with brilliant intellects, who were far more capable as to their ability than I, who have been condemned by reason of their poverty to go into the various mines in the neighbourhood, not because they were unable to make the best of education if they had been given the opportunity, but because their poverty condemned them to go there. I want to draw attention to the Report presented by the Commission which inquired into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which was published last Thursday or Friday. I would like the House to note the very remarkable tribute that is paid to the kind of work done in the various day schools of the country. On page 132 of that Report I read:
The number of poor men in residence at both Universities increased materially during the last half of the nineteenth Century. This increase has been very rapid in recent years owing to the improvement of local schools, with the assistance of grants from local education authorities, and to the consequent success of boys from those schools in competing for open scholarships at the Universities.
If the Geddes Report be acted upon, this paragraph will cease to be true in the coming year. The Report continues:
We have received returns with regard to the extent to which boys from the less expensive schools passed to the two Univer-
sities in the two years before the War. These returns show that out of a total number of 892 scholarships and exhibitions awarded at Oxford and Cambridge in those two years together to boys from schools in the United Kingdom no fewer than 425, or nearly 50 per cent., were won by boys from the cheaper boarding schools (with fees not exceeding £80 a year), or from day schools with fees exceeding £10 a year but providing education, nevertheless, at a very moderate cost, while 157, or not far short of 20 per cent., were won by boys from the cheapest day schools with either no fees at all or fees not exceeding £10 a year.
Here we have the most eloquent tribute I have read for years to the capacity of people who belong to the lower middle class and the working class to produce among them children of talent who, given the opportunity, will hold their own with the children of the wealthy. Our demand, therefore, is that these facilities shall not be reduced, but that they shall be increased, so that in the great competition for social service those who belong to the lower gradations of society shall have the same chance to compete as those who belong to the more favourably disposed and endowed. The fight of to-morrow as between the nations is going to depend not so much upon our guns and our battlements or upon our battleships, but it is going to depend upon the efficiency of the young in the classroom and in the laboratory. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that in our educational system at this initial stage after the Great War has passed, in the new rivalry of nations, our children shall not be handicapped as compared with the children of other countries, although that is the case at this particular moment.
The following is a comparative table showing the percentage of attendance at technical schools in the leading countries: Denmark, 23.8 per cent.; Japan, 11.6: Holland, 11.4; United States of America, 8.6. In this list England holds the seventh place, which is not a very honourable position, and does not reflect very much credit upon us. It shows for us a menace that perhaps very few outside these walls have yet realised. I make the claim boldly that the Minister of Education should set his face against any attempt to whittle down the provision for education in this country. We are not only not content with making a retrogressive movement, but we make a bold demand for a progressive movement. We are
living in new times, and in the words of Lowell:
New occasions teach new duties;
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must ever up and onward
Who would keep abreast of Truth.
The only way in which this country can keep abreast of the newer truths and general wealth of knowledge is by enabling our boys and girls in the day schools, the secondary schools and the universities to be allowed to enter into the portals of knowledge without any artificial barriers being placed in their way.
I observed with some interest the other day that my distinguished fellow-countrymen who presides over the destinies of this House ventured to take his place in the Sabbath school, and the lesson before him was the action of the unjust workmen towards the heir to the vineyard. The children of all nations are the heirs to a great heritage; which no one has a right to deprive them of. They are the heirs to the literature of all the ages, heirs to the scientific thought of all the ages, heirs to the artistic accomplishments of all the ages. We declare that the Prime Minister's friends on the opposite side of the House have no right to deprive these heirs of their inalienable heritage. We demand that working class children, middle class children, in fact all children should be provided with facilities to educate themselves, so that they may give a more efficient service to the community of to-morrow. We are prepared to co-operate with the Minister of Education in any steps he may take to make our national system of education more efficient in that direction.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The hon. Member who has just spoken is quite mistaken if he thinks that interest in education is confined to one class and to one party in this House. The solicitude of some hon. Members for education since the publication of the Geddes Report is very remarkable, and now it seems to be much more deep-seated than anyone could have anticipated. As a matter of fact, the middle classes are accustomed to make much greater sacrifices and to stint themselves more in order to give their children a good education than the parents of the children of the working classes, who receive education at the cost of the general community. I think everyone appreciates the value of education.
What they appear to doubt is whether the money spent upon education turns out the beet results, and whether we are really getting full value for the money which is being spent. Opinion in regard to the cost of education has been very strong since the publication of the Geddes Report, and we cannot exclude the idea of cutting down expenditure upon education. You meet employer after employer who will tell you that the ordinary boy or girl cannot write so well as would-be clerks could a generation ago. Certainly reading, writing and arithmetic do not stand so high as they used to do. I think the reason for this is that the curriculum in the schools is overcrowded in many instances.
Another reason why many people are sceptical as to the expenditure is because the great bulk of the community, in spite of the better system of education, show less interest in public and foreign affairs than was the case in Victorian days, when nothing or, at any rate, very little was spent upon education by the State. If a man looks back upon the spacious times of Queen Victoria, particularly in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, before the days of free education, he will find there was intense interest displayed by working people in education, for those were the days when mechanics' institutes and free libraries grew up in all our great towns, and when provincial Universities were established. The interest of the working classes in those times in foreign affairs was most intense. For instance, they followed closely the war between North and South in the United States of America, and they displayed great sympathy for men like Kossuth and Garibaldi, whereas to-day most of the leading men abroad are unknown to them, and possibly at the present minute the only foreigner who enjoys any celebrity is Georges Carpentier. The real master minds overseas to-day are not recognised by the great bulk of the population. That is due, I think, to two main causes-first, the enormous popularity of amusements and, secondly, the action of a Press which does not cater for the popular intellect at all, but which simply appeals to its readers by means of light articles on amusements, and does not lead them to take a deeper interest in the more serious politics of the day. The point I am making is not that education is a bad thing, but simply that at the present
time there is this scepticism with regard to the use of education. The duty of Parliament and the Minister of Educational am not suggesting less money should be spent—is to follow a policy with regard to education which outweighs this very great handicap existing at the present time to the cause of education in England. We must have the most perfect system of education possible, first, because we are a democracy, and secondly, because, as a democracy, upon our shoulders lie the obligations of Empires. It is perfectly true that at the present time Labour is not fit to govern.

Mr. J. JONES: Who is responsible for that?

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: What we have to do is to so perfect our system of education as to make Labour less unfit to govern. That being so, I think both the House and the country will welcome the concessions which the Government have made to the cause of education in not adopting all the recommendations of the Geddes Report. The great body of public opinion in England is with the Government in their decision to continue the education of children under six, but that is not literally a policy of education at all. A child under six cannot be educated. The advantage of allowing such children to go to school is that it keeps them off the streets and out of the kitchen. It is a social need and not an educational need at all. Then so far as the teachers' pay is concerned, I think the country will welcome the decision of the Government not to abate that pay—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are doing so!"]—because the work the teachers are doing is of enormous value, as anyone who is well acquainted with life in our great towns must realise, for they and they alone in many industrial areas uphold the torch of civilisation amid the most difficult and hostile surroundings. Another point in favour of keeping up the teachers' pay is that unless you give the teachers good pay to-day you will not attract good boys and good girls into the profession. I was very much struck by an observation made to me by a head teacher in Lancashire some years ago in one of our cotton textile towns. He said it was extraordinary that the brightest boys and girls in the schools at Oldham, Rochdale and similar places would far rather go into the mill than into the teaching profession. It is a serious thing that the great practice of teaching should be in the
hands of boys and girls in these districts who are less well intellectually endowed.
That brings me to a suggestion I have to make to the Minister. It would be well if something could be done to induce more young men and women from the Universities to go in for teaching in the elementary, schools. A very large number of girls at the Universities will, in the present state of trade, find many careers which were open to them during the War now closed to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able not only by holding out financial inducements, but by holding out the inducement of public spirit to entice a larger number of girls from the Universities to take up teaching in the elementary schools. Something could be done to make the training of teachers more attractive and more useful for them in the work they will have to undertake. Might not something be done to enable them to travel and see something of life in parts of the country other than where they were born? I think it would be an enormous advantage to them, I was told a few days ago by some of the head teachers in Manchester that there are actually girls going into the training colleges to train as elementary school teachers who have never seen the sea. If that is the case in a city like Manchester in the year 1922, it is hopeless to imagine that any boy or girl can teach well in a school who, during his or her growing life, has hardly been in a railway train and has never even seen the sea. Very much might be done to improve the training of elementary teachers by enabling them to travel a little bit more and by giving them a taste for those advantages which are normally associated with University education.
I do not think we ought to endorse too passionately the plea of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken against cutting down expenditure. I am sure we have listened to him with all respect, but of course we know that at the present time it is far better to have the country half educated and solvent than to have it well educated and bankrupt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well I think that is a truism. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to be more patient. I should have thought that one of the first requisites for education was a capacity to listen.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I have discussed with the representatives of practically every Teachers' Union and Association in Lancashire the question where it is possible to make economies in our educational system without cutting down its efficiency. Of course, the House will realise that in these days it is vital to have economy, and the real task which the Minister of Education has before him—and I do not envy him the task, for I quite realise how extraordinarily difficult it is—is to distinguish that which is essential from that which is not essential, to discover what are the frills and embroideries of education about which we hear so much on the platform, but which it is so difficult to discover in practice. One frill no doubt is providing luxuries like dancing classes for boys and girls out of the rates. If there are any frills of that sort they can, of course, be cut down. But the difficulty is to distinguish what is a luxury from what is a necessity. At first sight it might be suggested that art-teaching is a luxury and not a necessity. I myself at one time was rather impressed by that argument, but when one looks into the type of education carried on in our art schools, and realises the enormous industrial value of those schools, that argument does not bear examination. A few weeks ago I went through the Municipal Art School in Manchester and I was amazed at the economic value of the art teaching given there. During the last few years, owing to our art education, we have been able to capture from the French the leadership in the art of designing for calico-printing—and now we do not go to France for our best designs. We are able to get them in England. It is the same with respect to pottery and in regard to advertisements by posters. These schools of art have performed a function which can by no means be termed a luxury, seeing they have proved to be so essential to the economic prosperity of our country.
I hope the Minister will be able to say something as to the possibility of reviving the competitive Exhibition in Art which used to be held at small expense at the Victoria and Albert Museum before the War, and I trust he will tell us whether it is his intention or not to reappoint the Chief Inspector of Art in this country, with a view to co-ordinating art teaching particularly in industrial designs and in
the interest of art progress in this country. I think also it would be a very great advantage to the schools interested if the Minister can say what is going to be done with the Secondary Schools. Many High Schools are anxious with regard to the continuation of the Government grant. I understand that for five years the grant is to be continued to schools of the type of the Manchester High School for Girls, whose welfare depends so largely on what they get from the Government, and whose services in our great cities are so extraordinary valuable. If the Minister of Education can give us information on this point it will be exceedingly welcome. Let me say something about the educational ladder. My hon. Friend who spoke last laid very great emphasis on the importance of giving free scholarships enabling a very much larger proportion of the children of the working classes to percolate through the Secondary Schools to the Universities. The existence of an educational ladder is, of course, essential to a well-governed democracy, and I myself, who have benefited by the existence of this ladder to a very large extent, would be the last person to deny its use. At the same time one could carry that process too far, and if 25 per cent. of the free places in the Secondary Schools are given to scholars from Elementary Schools, it seems a very liberal allowance. My own experience is different from that of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. My belief and experience is that any boy or any girl, at the present time, with a high standard of intelligence can make his or her way by scholarships from the Elementary School to the Secondary School, and from the Secondary School to the University. I can say that in the Grammar School of my native town there was not a boy of any reasonable ability who could not obtain a scholarship or exhibition at Oxford or Cambridge, or at some of the new Universities.
There is no great advantage in turning a large number of boys and girls who are not particularly brilliant into occupations which are already overcrowded, and taking them away from callings where the need for men and women of capacity is very great indeed. You are depriving the workshops of brains, and transferring those brains into other channels, where the demand is very limited and the supply very great. I
hope that one aim of the Board of Education will be to give the greatest elasticity to the different districts of the country to develop their own ideas of education. There are some agricultural districts where, no doubt, vocational training will appeal greatly to the mass of the people. Each district has its own needs. It is a mistake to stereotype one system of education and to make it applicable to all sorts and conditions of men and to all types of population, whether they are industrial or professional or agricultural. There is one common factor which ought to exist in education which does not exist at the present time, that is what is sometimes called civics, that is to say, the teaching of how we are governed. There is a glowing account of how civics are taught in Switzerland in Lord Bryce's book on "Democracy." We should have more civics taught in England, and it is possible to teach it in a non-partisan fashion. Every boy should know how the country is governed, what Parliament is, and how much we owe to the fighting services, who have made our Empire what it is. If we had civics taught, we would never have boys growing up with ideas such as characterised the conscientious objectors during the late War.
It was curious to hear the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, and who distinguished himself as a conscientious objector, asking for a better system of education than we have now. I agree we ought to have a far better system than we have now, because, if we had, there would be no conscientious objectors at all. If those boys and girls were brought up to realise what democracy means and how it rests upon Parliament, they would be content to have it resting upon Parliament and would not seek to attempt unconstitutional methods, such as direct action. I hope the Ministry of Education will encourage voluntary associations like Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, for they are real elements of hope in our educational system at the present time. I hope we can look forward to the time when every boy will become a Boy Scout and when he will as naturally pass into the Territorial Army when he grows up. Then we should have every man ready to be a soldier should the need arise. I am afraid I have detained the House at some length, and these are rather disjointed observations, but this is a sub-
ject which appeals to me as to all classes and parties at the present time. We are very fortunate in having as Minister of Education one who has shown himself a great scholar and a writer of delightful books. I hope he will continue to make a stand for what is the true cause of education in our country, and thereby place the future well-being and contentment of our population on firmer and more sound foundations than they rest upon at the present time.

Mr. ASQUITH: There is one point on which I am agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, that is in failing to discover any logical sequence between the various propositions he has enunciated. I do not know, after listening most carefully to his speech, whether he thinks that the whole of our educational development during the last 50 years has been a backward and unfruitful one. He says that the working classes have lost interest in foreign policy. I have been a great deal longer in public life than he has, and I have never known a time in which the interest of the great bulk of our people in international relationships, looked at in their widest sense, has been more acute, more vivid and more universal. His idea apparently is to establish a system of education—if you could call it education—in which everyone would be fit—that is the aim and object he has in view—to wield a musket and take some part in military operations. I can only gather that from what he has said, and as an accompaniment and concommitant to that, he thinks the Labour party would be sufficiently educated to be entrusted with the government of the country. In what way the one proposition is to be harmonised with the other he has left the House completely in the dark. I do not know if it is necessary to pursue further the hon. Gentleman's devious and somewhat inconsistent theories on an occasion like this.
My object in rising is to impress if I can—but I do not think it needs to be impressed on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education—the extreme and, indeed, criminal inexpediency at this time of cutting down education. I agree with almost everything that was said in the admirable speech, if he will allow me to
say so, of the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, and I think I may be allowed to reinforce his general proposition by some special arguments which have been deeply impressed upon me in the course of the last two and a half years, while I have had the honour of presiding over the Commission which has just reported on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That Report, which has not had time yet to percolate into the minds of the people at large, is not only, on the whole, a substantial vindication of those two ancient Universities and the manner in which during the last generation, at any rate, they have discharged their trust, but it is—and this is much more important—a tribute based upon evidence and not upon speculation, after the most careful and meticulous inquiry, to the enormous advances which have been made as a result of the educational reforms which Parliament has sanctioned The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down spoke rather slightingly, I think, of the educational ladder.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: With all respect, I never did anything of the sort.

Mr. ASQUITH: I quite accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The educational ladder has been slowly built up in the last 50 years, but it is still at many stages blocked, obstructed, and inoperative. I myself could never have obtained even a foothold in public life or even in professional life had it not been for the pious foresight of benefactors, and I believe that that is the case with a very large number of other people. I was lucky enough to find a school in which progress upwards to the University was rendered possible. But take the case of a boy even now in our elementary schools. The system of scholarships and the facilities offered for the promotion of boys with brains and faculties have been enormously increased at the public expense. Everybody who is familiar with the facts—and they have been brought home to me by listening to the evidence given before this Commission—knows that there is at certain stages a blockage, and the stage at which—I make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend—and the stage where the blockade is most serious and where it prevents boys of brains and potential
faculties for progress from getting on to the ladder, is between the primary and the secondary schools. I am sure everyone with practical experience of education will agree with this. Where a boy gets a secondary school education, he has a good chance, with the scholarships and the facilities offered him by benefactors, of being able to push forward. There is a very good chance of his getting a University education. But there is a serious gap between our primary schools and that which ought to be the next stage on the road—the Secondary School and the University. It is, of course, not easy, and it certainly cannot be done without money, to provide a sufficient number of gangways and bridges to enable that blockage to be overcome, but I am sure if I were asked to say what is at this moment the most serious defect in our educational system I would say it is at that stage.
5.0 P.M.
Let me enlarge a little upon the more general aspect of our educational system. I am speaking now from the knowledge and experience I have gained through presiding over this prolonged inquiry. As I have said, I think the ancient Universities have come out of the ordeal very well indeed. Most of the great reforms which have been made during the last 50 years by those Universities have been spontaneous. They have been initiated by them, and have not been forced upon them by Parliament or from outside, and on the whole they can render a very good account of their stewardship of the great national resources with which they are entrusted. That is true, but by far the most gratifying thing which was revealed in the inquiry we held is the fact—I think the figures were mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down—that the scholarships at the University, which used to be almost the preserves of the great Public School, have now, in a proportion of very nearly 50 per cent., been won by boys who have served their educational apprenticeships in the primary and secondary schools. The notion that Oxford and Cambridge are the preserves of the rich, and that their advantages are confined in any substantial degree to any privileged class, is a complete misapprehension. At this moment there is a very large minority of students at those Universities who could
not have gone there without assistance in the form of scholarships or otherwise. I am sure in my own old college, which has had more than its fair share of the honours of the University, it has been to a very large extent because it has followed the excellent example of its wise administrators, now nearly a hundred years ago, of throwing open scholarships to everyone, and we have acted entirely on the principle of detur digniori. Other colleges have followed suit, and the University in that respect is on a level footing. There has never been a better vindication of the principle of free, open, unjobbed and unfavoured competition than has been accorded by the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge during the last. 50 years.
I say to my hon. Friend who spoke so well at the beginning of the Debate that there is no obstacle whatsoever to a boy of brains, of faculty, of capacity of promise rising to the position of scholar, fellow, teacher, of the ancient universities, except—and it is a very-serious exception—the difficulty of passing: from the Elementary to the Secondary Schools. Beyond that the course is absolutely clear, and we all know the magnificent output of intellectual work,, both in the domain of teaching and also in the domain of research, that some of the most distinguished, indeed a very large proportion of the most distinguished, both of our teachers and of our men of research have contributed to the University, climbing to it through the Secondary School.
Was there ever a moment in history when it would be a more fatal and more suicidal step to cut down facilities which, though not meagre, are certainly not by any means ample enough for this great national purpose—a purpose that does not benefit any particular class more than another—of securing for the best intellectual life of the nation, the boys and girls who are most fitted to profit by it, and not only to profit by it themselves, but to exploit and develop it for the good of the community at large? I can assure the House that I do not believe at this moment, in the conditions in which wo live—conditions which have been modified, in some respects transformed, by the experience of the War—
there is any greater need for this country, not only for the purpose of holding its own position in the markets of the world, but in the international councils of Europe and the fullest and freest development of its own national life—I do not defend administrative waste in any sense—but looking at the thing as a whole, there is no greater national or international need than for this country wisely, far-sightedly and not in any sense waste-fully, to devote more and more of our resources in giving these boys and girls, with whom lies the promise of the future, every possible facility for increasing their intellectual wealth and thereby adding to the store of the wealth of the community.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am sure the House has listened with great pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which argument has been reinforced by the fruitful variety of experience which he has gathered as Chairman of the Commission which has recently been investigating the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I should like to take this opportunity of tendering to him my most sincere thanks for his kindness in undertaking the task of conducting so difficult and onerous an investigation and for the character and quality of the Report which has been issued. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded in eloquent, but not, I think, unjustified, terms to the great work which has been and is being achieved by the two ancient Universities. It is no surprise to me, though it has been a great satisfaction, to find that the Commission, after its careful investigation, has discovered so little to reprehend in the organisation and work of these two ancient institutions. In fact, it has given them a clean bill of health. The principal defects, so far as I can gather from a perusal of the Report, which the Commissioners have discovered in Oxford and Cambridge are poverty and overwork. I am glad to be able to announce that, in consequence of the character of the Report, the Government has lost no time in putting the two Universities upon the Treasury list for grants, and that the £30,000 which during the last two years has been granted to them as an exceptional and non-recurring grant may now be regarded as a recurrent
grant which will be made year by year. I am well aware that the grant of £30,000 does not satisfy the full aspirations of the Committee. They are asking for a grant of £110,000 to each University. I am, of course, not in a position to make any pronouncement in respect of those proposals. They will have to be carefully examined by the University Grants Committee. It is only after they have reported their view that any action can be taken.
I agree that one of the most remarkable features in the development of higher academic life in this country has been the improvement in the educational ladder. It is true there are still blocks. In my view there are two places where these blocks have not been removed. In the first place, there is the obstruction which occurs at the end of the elementary school period. It is true that a very large number of boys and girls who are qualified to profit by secondary education, at any rate up to the age of 16, are prevented from so profiting by the scantiness of the secondary school provision in the country. Only last year, in Manchester, I was informed that no fewer than three thousand boys and girls had passed the intellectual test which was regarded as a sufficient indication of their capacity to profit by secondary school education, whose parents were perfectly willing to keep them at a secondary school until the age of sixteen, but for whom places could not be found. A few weeks ago I was talking to the principal of a day continuation school in London, who told me she considered that 42 per cent. of the pupils under her care would be fitted to profit by a full secondary school education. There is, therefore, no doubt whatever that we could very easily double the free places in our secondary schools which are allotted to boys and girls from elementary schools without in any way lowering the quality of secondary school education, and there is nothing I more deeply regret in the present financial stringency than the necessity it imposes on the Board of Education to arrest for the moment the development of secondary schools. But while we are considering this topic, do not let us be unduly despondent. The number of boys and girls in our grant-aided secondary schools has nearly doubled in the last few years, and something between 67 and 70 per cent. of the pupils in these secondary schools
have come up from the elementary schools. There has, therefore, been a very considerable broadening of the avenue from the elementary school into the secondary, although it is by no means yet sufficiently broad to meet the needs of the country as a whole.
But there is a second point in the educational ladder where I think there is still much improvement to be hoped for, and that is during the later stages of elementary school life, between the ages of 16 and 18. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend took any evidence on that point, but certainly it is my impression that one of the weakest spots in our whole educational system lies just in that region—in the region of the later secondary school education—and it has been one of my principal objects since I came to the Board to strengthen and encourage the work in the upper portion of our secondary schools, and in that way to enable a freer and broader passage to be made between the secondary schools and the universities. I venture to think that the establishment of grants for advanced courses in the grant-aided secondary schools has had a very considerable and very beneficial influence in that direction.
As I listened to the eloquent speech of the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), I could not help feeling that it was directed to the wrong address. If the late Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) had been standing at this Box instead of the Minister of Education, I could imagine he would have been withered by the corrosive eloquence of the hon. Gentleman. May I observe to the hon. Gentleman that an attack upon the educational recommendations of the Geddes Committee is not an attack upon the Government, because the Government have not accepted the recommendations of the Committee; at least, they have accepted only a very small portion of those recommendations. The hon. Member for Caerphilly commented, not at very great length, but with some severity, upon the proposal to ask teachers to make a contribution towards superannuation. I very much regret that, owing to the financial situation of the country, it is, in my opinion, desirable to take that step; regret, not because I think it is inequitable, but because I am very anxious that the teaching profession should lose any sense of grievance. For a long time past
they have been underpaid and undervalued, and I consider, and I have always considered, not only that it was the height of political imprudence and a great mark of lack of statecraft to underpay the teachers of the country, but that the most obvious way of improving the national system of education was to improve the remuneration and the status of the teachers, and to attract the best ability possible into the service of the schools. Consequently, I am very reluctant to acquiesce in any step which may spread a sense of injustice among the teachers.
But let us look at the facts. In 1917 the average income of a pensionable elementary teacher was £109. In 1924, with the increments which will accrue under the Burnham arrangement, the average income will be £275. There has been no analogous increase, so far as I know, in any other part of the public service. If you take the lower grades of the permanent Civil Service, the average increase has been far less—99 per cent. as against something like 152 per cent., and the salary conditions since the Superannuation Bill was introduced in 1918 have changed very greatly to the advantage of the teacher. This great improvement in the salary conditions of the teachers, falsifying as it does, to a very large extent, the estimates on the basis of which the House voted the Superannuation Bill of 1918, does justify the Government in considering a revision of the Teachers' Superannuation Act. It is very disagreeable for anybody with a small income to be called upon to make a contribution amounting to 5 per cent. of that income, when the contribution is not expected. I think we should all very much dislike it. But let us remember that the teachers, lecturers, and professors in those universities which are fortunate enough to have a pension system—Oxford and Cambridge are not so fortunate—normally make a 5 per cent. contribution to that pension scheme; let us remember that the masters in those public schools which are fortunate enough to have a pension system make a contribution of 5 per cent. to their pensions, and I think we shall realise that teachers are not being singled out from other members of their own profession. If you take a very wide view of the situation they are, if anything, being singled out to their own advantage
as against other members of the public service.
We are bound to view the educational position in the light of the immediate economic necessities of the country, and I venture to ask the friends of education on the opposite benches, and the friends of the teachers, to use their influence to get teachers to regard this proposal, not, indeed, with enthusiasm—that I cannot expect—but, at any rate, with acquiescence.

Mr. ASQUITH: With sombre acquiescence.

Mr. FISHER: With sombre acquiescence.

Mr. S. WALSH: Is it more than a proposal at present? Has it come into effect?

Mr. FISHER: No, nothing has come into effect; it is only a proposal. The House will have a full opportunity of discussing it when the proposal comes forward. I merely mention it because the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the question in his speech. Let me con-elude by emphasising the point brought out by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith)—the importance of maintaining our public system of education intact. We have had to forgo, indeed, owing to financial difficulties, many of the developments which were provided for under the Education Act, 1918, but it is not true, as was said by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, that the Act lies derelict on the Statute Book. There are 54 Sections in the Act, three of which only have not been put into execution. I admit that these three Sections are most important, but a great deal of progress has been accomplished under the Act. For instance, there has been much expansion in medical treatment. You have only to look at a map of the London clinics in the year 1921, and compare it with a map of London clinics in 1918, to see the great progress which has been achieved. For the first time this great Metropolis has made full and ample provision for treating all the minor ailments of children in the London area, and that, I consider, is a very considerable achievement.
But we must not let the system of education down. Although we profess to be a stupid race, we are, in fact, a very gifted race, a very versatile race, and,
although we do not generally believe it, a very artistic and musical race. Every year great gifts are squandered in this country for lack of due educational facilities. We have experienced in the course of our history one great national misfortune. We grew rich too rapidly at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century; we became industrialised too rapidly; we are perhaps over industrialised now; and we have to fight against the conditions created by the huge and hideous cities of toil which have grown up among us, and the schools and the churches are our great agencies for the maintenance of civilisation against the forces of barbarism and of ignorance with which we are continually fighting.
I am confident that the people of this country will claim to have a good system of education and that they will be content with nothing less, but I am all in favour of carrying out such administrative economies as may be compatible with a good system of education. I think there is a very considerable field for economy in education without any material sacrifice of educational interests; but if you want economies to be carried out effectually they must be carried out deliberately. You cannot carry out a great scheme of economies in such an important field of social service if you are tempted to carry it out at one blow. You have to count your steps as you go, and I feel we cannot be too careful, and local education authorities cannot be too careful, as to the steps they take to reduce national expenditure. When those steps are taken, let them be taken with deliberation, and with circumspection, and only after the field has been carefully surveyed. It is true that we have made very rapid progress in the last few years, and, consequently, it is no doubt true that in certain quarters there has been expenditure which perhaps can hardly be justified; but I am convinced that if we take a broad view of the educational system of the country, from the elementary schools to the universities, and if we make due allowance, as we are bound to, for necessary imperfections in a teaching staff which has too long been paid at a very low rate, we shall have no need to be dissatisfied. It is quite true that the initial expenditure on education—and 70 per cent. of that expenditure is accounted for by salaries—does not bring in, and cannot be expected to bring in, an immediate
and palpable result. If you are going to satisfy yourselves upon the vital problem as to whether the policy of larger expenditure on education is likely to be successful or not, I think you must look principally to two places in the educational system. You must look, in the first place, to the quality of the recruits who are coming into the training colleges, and, in the second place, to the quality of the work which is being turned out by the universities.
If you look to the training colleges, you will find that the improvement in the prospects as regards remuneration of teachers is attracting into the teaching profession men and women of higher intellectual qualifications, and that, in itself, is a justification for the improved rates. If you look to the universities, you will find that they are making contributions to learning and to science exceeding in quality and amount the tribute which the universities have paid to the sum of European science and learning in previous times. There is a remarkable passage in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge relating to the services rendered by the two great Universities during the War. These services were not confined to services in the field. In every branch of every science connected with war, the laboratories of the universities contributed an invaluable quota. When we are considering whether it is wise or unwise to maintain our educational system at its present level of cost and efficiency, let me say that to my knowledge there are researches proceeding in the laboratories of this country which, if they realise the hopes of the scientific men engaged upon them, will pay the country over and over again for the cost of its educational system. I am, of course, freely told in the Press that I am an enthusiast whose words cannot be trusted in this matter. I am not ashamed of my enthusiasm for education. I believe that education is the greatest and surest investment that we can make. I think we should be acting very foolishly if we surrendered our faith in the schools and colleges of the country. Never has there been greater zeal, greater devotion, greater capacity in the teaching profession. If you want to realise something of the work which is done in our elementary schools, let me ask you to read the publications of such an elementary schoolmaster
as Mr. Lamborn or Mr. Sampson. They will show that elementary schoolmasters are capable of writing brilliant, books on educational subjects and inspiring real enthusiasm in their pupils.
I need not advertise the peculiar merit of our secondary schools in this country. It is, of course, as I freely admit, a somewhat expensive system, but why is it expensive? It is expensive, very largely, because our notions of secondary education in this country are largely dominated by the traditions of the great and famous public schools. We are not content in this country with a mere barrack of class-rooms. We want our boys to play cricket and football, and we want our girls to have opportunities for athletic exercise as well. If you develop the social and athletic side of secondary school life, you have, of course, to arrange for playgrounds, and that means a certain amount of expense, but I venture to think that the money so expended is not wasted, and I do not think it is to be regretted. I notice that the Geddes Committee laid, and I think properly laid, great stress upon the proposition that boys and girls should not be pressed on into our secondary schools unless they were really qualified to profit by the education. I entirely subscribe to that doctrine. But when we are considering whether we are making too large a provision for secondary schools in this country, let me remind the House of a figure. In this country at the present moment, in spite of the very great development of the last four years, we have about 10 children per 1,000 of the population enjoying the benefits of a secondary school education in the grant-aided secondary schools. In America and in Prussia the proportion is 15. If you consider, not the proportion of children in the secondary schools, but the proportion of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 18, the figures are, for America 15, and for England and Wales four. I do not, therefore, think that on that showing we can claim to have made an extravagant provision for the education of boys and girls after the elementary school stage.

Mr. ASQUITH: That is only in grant-aided schools?

Mr. FISHER: Yes. Now I come to the last point which was raised, namely, whether we are getting full value for our
education. The hon. Member who raised this point cited, as so many speakers do, the opinion which is often expressed that the education now given is not what it was in the "good old spacious days of Queen Victoria." There has never been a generation in the history of this country which has not believed that it was degenerate. Two years before Wolfe won his immortal victory on the heights of Abraham, and Clive won for us the Indian Empire, a Cambridge don published a heavy treatise pointing out that Englishmen were degenerate, that they had lost all the fine qualities of their ancestors, and that the nation was rapidly going downhill. I am always being told that the education given in our schools and universities is not what it was—that British boys have ceased to learn to spell. When did they know how to spell? They have never known how to spell, and they never will know—and it is not so very important either. I attach, if I may be allowed to say so, the lowest possible value to the virtues of orthography. I consider that what is necessary is that a boy should know how to read and to write fluently, be able to calculate, and should have a living, vivid interest in books and in the things that are worth having. I believe that, if you examine the criticisms which are passed upon the products of our elementary schools, you will find that in reality they resolve themselves into a criticism of what is admittedly the great defect in the educational system of this, and, indeed, of almost all countries. I allude to the fact that the provision for post-elementary education is entirely insufficient. What is our system? We spend millions on elementary schools, and our elementary schools are often very good, though they vary very greatly in quality. I remember that a Chief Inspector of the Board of Education, the lamented Mr. Dale—who knew, perhaps, more about the elementary schools of this country than anyone else—when, on first going to the Board of Education, I asked him his opinion about the elementary schools, said, "There is as great a difference between one elementary school and another as there is between an elementary school and Eton," and that is perfectly true. Our elementary schools do vary in quality, but all my evidence goes to show that there has
been not only a marked improvement in the education given in our elementary schools during the last 30 years, and particularly during the last 10 years, but that there is no sphere of social work in which the improvement is equally clear and definite. Some years ago Mr. Pease, now Lord Gainford, when at the Board of Education, conducted an inquiry in the County of Lancaster as to the alleged deficiencies of elementary school pupils in the three R's. The result of that inquiry was to show that, so far from there being any evidence of deficiency, there was evidence, on the contrary, of considerable progress.
I revert to my point, which is that the criticism of the educational product of our elementary schools is generally not a criticism of the elementary school itself, but a criticism of the absence of teaching after the elementary school is passed. Boys and girls go out into what is euphemistically called the university of life at the age of 12 or 13 or 14. They go into this or that industry, and they lose very rapidly, unless they are brought under some kind of influence, a great deal of the knowledge which they have acquired in earlier life. That is the case for the day continuation school. I regret that it is impossible at present to proceed, as I had hoped, with the scheme of adolescent education. Until the country is in a position to do something in an inexpensive way, to continue some kind of educational control over boys and girls after they have left the elementary schools, much of the money and work devoted to children at the elementary stage will necessarily be squandered. That is all I have to say. The criticisms which I had expected have not, I am glad to say, developed, and I have only to conclude by stating that I am rejoiced to find that in this House, as, indeed, in the country at large, there is a clear recognition of the national importance of a good system of education.

Mr. WALSH: The three speeches to which we have just listened are worthy of the House in its very best days. I have listened with extreme pleasure to the statement of the Minister of Education. I understood him to say that the suggested cut of 5 per cent. embodied in the Report of the Geddes Committee has not yet taken place. That is very good to hear. Is it a matter that can be dealt with by the Department?

Mr. FISHER: It would require legislation.

Mr. WALSH: I will not labour the point, for at this moment we have nothing on which to censure the Minister. There is no doubt that the trail of the Geddes Report is over the proceedings of the House this afternoon. We are told that there must be very large reductions in the cost of the administration of education, and that many millions must be saved. We have been told that the nation is in the very crisis of its fate unless we save those millions. It would be impossible for the most convinced supporter of education to have heard a more finely conceived speech than the one just delivered by the Minister of Education. His utterances throughout were those of the most fervent apostle of education. I can hardly conceive how he can reconcile any serious reduction of the Education Vote with the statements he has just made. In the £200,000,000 of the Vote on Account which the House is asked to pass this afternoon, there will probably be many millions devoted to the Education Department for administration. When we see that this 5 per cent. cut in the salaries of teachers, if not recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, is supported by him, we have a right to ask for his further consideration of the matter, not merely on the ground of the relatively poor financial position that the teacher has so long occupied, but because of the serious question whether such a cut would not be a breach of the contract entered into between the nation and the teachers. I believe it would be a breach of faith.
It is almost impossible to follow in any consecutive order the proceedings in respect of education. There were various committees at work during three or four years. The Burnham Committees were set up in 1920 and worked right on into 1921, and then made a definite series of proposals which were adopted by the Education Department and sanctioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, I assume, they received the full assent of this House. If that be the case, any change in the conditions, any reduction of salaries, would seem to constitute a breach of faith. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, in saying that at present it is only a proposal, disarms opposition to himself, but I suggest that it has no right even to be a proposal. If there is
one thing above all others about which this House ought to be most careful it is that, in its relations with the people in its service, it should faithfully and punctiliously carry out its contracts. So far as I can see, a cut of 5 per cent. in the pay of the teachers would involve a direct breach of faith on the part of this House in relation to a contract entered into with the teachers. I would like to read to the House the terms agreed upon:
At a joint meeting of the three Burnham Committees dealing with salaries for elementary schools, secondary schools, and technical schools, held on Thursday, 26th January, the following Resolution was passed unanimously and was submitted to the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Education, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the Leader of the House.
I will read only the concluding paragraph. It is as follows:
They urge upon the Cabinet the imperative necessity of retaining the standard scales of salaries for teachers unaltered, being strongly of opinion that any alteration involving reductions of teachers' salaries will produce grave discontent in all grades of the teaching profession, will impede the work of the local educational authorities, and will tend to dry up the supply of intending teachers at a time when the needs of the country require a substantial increase of entrants into the ranks of the teaching profession.
That was one of the three Resolutions, agreed to by the Minister of Education, by the Leader of the House, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Prime Minister. I take it that that is the basis of the contract into which the teachers of the country have entered with the nation. I submit that the House has no right during the period covered by the terms of this Agreement, nor, indeed, has the Department the right, to make a deduction of 5 per cent. from the teachers' salaries. The fundamental point is the point of the breach of faith. Only about a month ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in general terms upon what would be the effect of the Government's proposals, stated that a breach of faith would take place and would involve serious consequences if reduction were made in the teachers' salaries. The right hon. Gentleman was followed a few days later by the Minister of Education, in respect of whose statement there seems to be a serious misapprehension in the country.
6.0 P.M.
I have received many letters, as probably have most hon. Members, from members of the teaching profession, declaiming most strongly against the 5 per cent. reduction for the provision of pensions. They are under the impression that the Department is proceeding to make that cut. I am glad to hear that a Bill will be necessary and that the matter remains in some doubt. But because of the £200,000,000 involved in this Bill and because the money will provide for the policy of the future, we are entitled to say now what we consider to be the right or wrong policy in education. I am sure that we cannot inflict any greater injustice upon the nation itself and can do nothing more harmful for the present and the future than to carry out the proposals embodied in the Geddes Report. Even now many local authorities are dismissing their teachers and many authorities are increasing the size of the classes. As a consequence there is being placed upon a section of society that for half a century has included the most miserably underpaid workers in the general community, a greater burden and much heavier duties, and the cause of education is bound to suffer. At present the average throughout the elementary schools of the country is 32.4 pupils per class. The suggestion is that that should be increased to an average of 50 per class, or an increase of more than 50 per cent. I ask hon. Members who know anything about elementary education to consider how it is possible for any young man or woman to conduct with any degree of efficiency classes which upon their present average numbers are to be increased by 50 per cent. Every person who has even an outside knowledge of teaching conditions is agreed upon one thing, that the numbers in the classes, especially in the big cities and towns, are already beyond the effective control of any one teacher, yet in order to increase the average, these numbers—already beyond effective management by one teacher—will have to be increased. Under such conditions it is' certain that education in the future would come within the definition applied to it by many people now, namely, that it is inefficient and does not produce useful citizens, but sends out pupils who do not properly know even the three It's and many other things which they ought
to know. I agree myself with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been, in no branch of the life of the nation, progress so marked as the educational progress of the last 20 or 30 years. I noticed only a few days ago, a statement attributed to the Registrar-General, regarding the efficiency with which the census papers were filled up. He stated, and I was not at all surprised, that those papers were best filled up by the people in large industrial areas—in the large cities and towns. I cannot tax my memory so far as to give the exact quotation, but I think he said the papers were better filled up in those districts than were the papers which came from the middle classes—from the suburbs—and from upper class society. I believe a comparison was made by him on those lines and that the comparison was by no means to the detriment of the children of the working classes. I rather flatter myself I can fill up some of these tantalising and puzzling forms with relative ease, but when that big census form came to me, I confess to a good deal of fluttering of the heart. That the children of the elementary schools should have filled them up with marked efficiency is in itself a real testimony to the great educational progress made during the last 20 or 30 years.
Nor must we forget the manner in which the, young people of the great industrial areas rallied to the forces, how their potentialities developed, the manner in which they became useful members of the Army and Navy, and how they tackled and succeeded in overcoming problems with which the world had hitherto been unacquainted. All that proves what an immense reserve we have in the brains of our young people. This is of all times the least propitious time to make such reductions as are suggested in the Geddes Report. What can follow from the increase of classes already too large except the dismissal of many teachers? Indeed, that is suggested as being the reason for the proposal. It is suggested that by increasing the numbers in the classes and by the elimination of children under six, you would have about 600,000 children out of the schools who are at present going into the schools, and you would save the salaries of from 9,000 to 10,000 teachers. I can imagine no saving which would prove such an utterly false
economy. Think of the conditions of the teachers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the training colleges. Nobody knows better than he that the training colleges are not, and have not been for the last five or six years, providing anything like the number which the teaching profession requires. The reports of the Board of Education since 1915 have gone to prove that the requirements of the schools call for far larger numbers entering the teaching profession, than the training colleges are turning out. The House might be interested to know that the Board of Education Report for 1916–17 states:
In our Report last year we called attention to the serious deficiency in the supply of teachers with which the country is now faced. We concluded our review of the situation last year by stating that it was our opinion that the continuance of the present shortage of supply would not only preclude such improvements as an increase in the length of school life or a reduction in the size of the classes, but would gravely imperil the maintenance of the level of efficiency in elementary education which was reached before the War.
The Report for 1917–18 contains the following:
We have found it necessary for some years past to call attention to the serious deficiency in the supply of teachers for elementary schools. The improvements for which the Act provides can not be carried out unless a large number of additional teachers is obtained, and yet the position with which the country is faced is that there has been for some years past a decrease in the number of the candidates entering on the first stage of preparation for the teaching profession.
The same thing obtained in the years 1918–19 and 1919–20. In the very last year's Report the Board state:
We have found it necessary for several years past to call attention to the serious position disclosed by these figures. The existing arrangements for this purpose will require revision, in view both of the present demand for teachers and the rise in the cost of living, and we hope this matter may receive the closest attention from all authorities when their schemes under the Act of 1918 are being put forth. If a sufficient number of boys and girls are to be enabled to complete the period of training, liberal assistance on the part of the local authorities will be needed.
A circular, dated 22nd August, 1919, is to the same effect. It states:
The future to which the Education Act of 1918 looked forward is in grave peril. The Board appeal to all local education authorities to contribute to the utmost of
their power to the solution of the problem of the recruitment of teachers, which is for the moment the most urgent and vital of all.
For many years past the training colleges have not been turning out the numbers required to meet the real needs of the elementary schools—not by thousands. Now it is proposed that we should embark on a policy which could only have the effect of still further increasing a deficiency already causing grave peril to the whole educational system set up by the Act of 1918—of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was the honoured author and custodian. In these circumstances we ask him to take into account the feeling of the majority in this House, and of the great preponderance of public opinion outside, on this matter. Let it be remembered that the young people who are now going into the training colleges to undergo their two years' training, have already gone through long years of arduous and careful preparation. I always regarded the teaching profession as the Cinderella of the professions. I know, from my own experience, how diligently and assiduously teachers must prepare themselves, and the great mental and physical strain involved in taking up this onerous profession. It calls for long years of hard struggle, and really serious mental and physical vigilance, and when the candidates have so prepared themselves, they have to go to training colleges, from which, in most cases, they come away with the necessary qualifications. It is a long process, necessitating self-sacrifice on the part both of the future teacher and the parent of the future teacher. I am as sure as I am of my own existence that the nation has never quite realised the nature and character of the training through which the teacher has to pass before arriving at a position to qualify themselves.
At this very moment there are thousands of young people arranging to enter the training colleges. They have to make their preparations many months in advance, and it is at this time, when they are looking ahead and have a right to look ahead with hopefulness to entering upon a career honourable to themselves and valuable to the community, that they are practically told there is no career for them. This is the time when the local education authorities are to be called on to reduce their expenses, when the size
of the classes is to be increased, when we are to be told, in the terms of this Report, that if the nation is to live the classes must be increased in size by more than 50 per cent., children under six must be eliminated, and that we must cut away some 10,000 teachers. What, then, is to be the future of these young people who have over a long term of years been qualifying for the profession? Their future is hopeless. If this line is to be pursued, the repeated appeals made by the Board of Education, and indeed by the right hon. Gentleman himself to the local authorities, that they should in a greater degree enable young people to enter into the profession, become absolutely void. We appeal to him to take into the Cabinet redoubled zeal and enthusiasm. We know he has the interest of education at heart. Without any words of flattery, we know there is no man who feels the responsibility of a great position more keenly that the right hon. Gentleman, and we ask him to take into the Cabinet the point of view of this House and of the country, namely, that by turning children under six into the streets you are not going to build up anything except a C3 population. It is said that that is not education. It is education. The more comprehensive, the broader, you make your scheme of education the nobler will our citizens become, and you cannot begin the process too early. The child mind, impressionable and ductile, should receive good impressions from the very earliest age, and if we really intend to make honourable, useful and noble citizens, we cannot start the process at too early a stage.

Mr. FISHER: May I remind the hon. Member that the Government have not accepted this proposal?

Mr. WALSH: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. The only reason I am impressing these points upon him is because we know how assiduous and powerful have been the influences brought to bear in favour of so-called economies which, in many cases, will only amount to the most wretched form of expenditure. We are urging this because we feel that there can be no more tragic or fatal step than to act on the lines suggested in the Geddes Report in respect to children under six years of age. I quite admit that I was not aware that
the Government had reached that decision, and it is a very great pleasure to me, and it must be to most of the Members of this House, that that decision should have been arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman used one very strong term when he spoke of our huge and hideous cities. They are hideous and huge, and I am glad to learn that a saving is not to be effected in the direction to which I have alluded. In a few short weeks from now it may very well be that this 5 per cent. cut will come up for revision. I will not repeat what I have said as to a breach of faith, but everybody knows that, not only on this matter, but on very many other matters in this House, where I have thought that the Government or this House were breaking an honourable engagement which they had contracted, I have spoken out, although I might have been at the time dead against the trend of opinion in the House. I said so many years ago in respect of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. People have a right to look forward, not merely to the letter of an engagement, but to its spirit, and I am sure the engagement entered into by this nation with the teachers will not permit, in honour, of anything taking place of the kind suggested in the Geddes Report.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the whole matter? It might very well be that the House itself could be placed in possession of information of a clearer character than at present exists. I admit that the Burnham Committee sat a long time, and I quite admit that its conclusions are very interesting, and that it did extremely good work, but, in order that the Members of this House should have the fullest information, I think it is very desirable that a Select Committee should go into the matter to find out exactly how the thing stands. It is suggested that by 1924 the teachers, on the average, will be in receipt of a figure of about £261, and that their grants since 1918 will have been something amounting to 120 per cent., and if that were the whole case there would be a very strong case for the consideration of Parliament, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the teachers did not come into the receipt of any additional wage or bonus for a long time after the War began, that they were faced with a con-
stantly increasing cost of living under conditions where, they were simply in receipt of the salary which they possessed at the outbreak of the War, and I am sure I carry the House with me when I say that no more useful citizens could be found at that time than those who were engaged in the teaching profession, and that they took on themselves the performance of a large number of additional duties, without which the country's operations could not have been so successful. I do not say that the War would not have been won, but I do say that they proved themselves to be the most useful class of citizens that a community could possess, and that they took upon themselves a very large number of duties which were nowhere within the terms of their contract, and under those circumstances they received no advance upon their salaries. It was years before they received any advance, and therefore, in the consideration of the amount of the advance they will receive when the Burnham recommendations come into full operation, we must surely, in equity, pay attention to the very long period within which they received no increase or bonus whatsoever.
For myself, I thank the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf, I am sure, of our party, for the extremely fine spirit he has evinced on this occasion. It has been a real pleasure to listen to three speeches this afternoon—the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), whose close contact with the teaching profession fits him to deal with this subject, the speech of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who is in no less degree qualified to speak on education, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, who has shown a sympathy with and a full understanding of this subject, of which this House may well be proud. I hope these recommendations will be given much more discussion in the Cabinet itself before they are allowed to take effect.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I welcome particularly the last sentences which have fallen from the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). It is good to hear from that side of the House that in other parts of the House there are Members who have the interest of education at heart. Some little time ago I read in a newspaper that
Lord Haldane had said that the Labour party was the only party that had the interest of education at heart. There was never anything more silly said about a political party. There has never been anything more barefaced or astonishing than the attempt of the Labour party to corner education as a political plank of their platform, and to corner the teachers as well. I venture to say, apologising as far as it is necessary to the Labour party, that in all parts of the House, and not merely in those parts of the House which are most noisy on the subject, the interests of the teachers are understood and will be safeguarded, and the interests of education as a whole are going to be safeguarded. It is not a very edifying spectacle to see the dead body of the Geddes proposals regarding economy in education trotted out in Labour speech after Labour speech, especially in view of the decisions which the Government has taken against a great many of these measures of economy, and has taken with the whole of the electorate behind it. If I may make a suggestion to the Labour party, it is this, not to take any special credit to themselves for the defence of education, but I may say that if there is any section of the people in the country which deserve special praise, unknown perhaps to themselves, it is the women voters. I believe that no Government which had eventually to go to the country with women having votes would have dared to adopt the Geddes proposals in bulk regarding education.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You adopted £6,000,000 of them.

Mr. MURRAY: So much for my apology for speaking, not being a member of the Labour party, upon one of the most important subjects in politics, which they have attempted, as I say, to bag for themselves. I, too, listened with great interest to the course of this Debate. As an old teacher in the University of Oxford, I listened with very great pleasure indeed to the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in favour of the two ancient universities. On this matter he has knowledge and authority, and I believe that his commendations will be accepted throughout the country, and will lay for good and all some of the noisy prejudices which we have heard
from time to time against the two ancient universities from those who know least about them. Speaking as having been a teacher in Oxford University, and as knowing something about the academic mind, I would say, what will perhaps surprise hon. Members, that one class of the community which requires to be reassured regarding the value of Oxford and Cambridge is the class of teachers in those universities. The academic mind is full of self-criticism, full of criticism of colleagues. It imagines that the nation has its eye upon it, upon the work of the two ancient universities, bitterly and with hostility. Part of the trouble at Oxford in the last 15 years has been that those charged with teaching there have not quite had the courage of their career or their curriculum, and I rejoice for my part, now that the Report of the Commission has been published, and the right hon. Member for Paisley has said what he has said, that the race of dons in the two universities will no longer have an excuse for tormenting and torturing themselves with the idea that they are cumbering the ground.
The right hon. Member for Paisley, I noticed, took credit to his own college of Balliol for many of the reforms and much of the advance in education in the last three generations in Oxford. There is no doubt about it; that is quite true. I will say as much as that for Balliol, although I am not a Balliol man, and there is no doubt that it was in Balliol that dons first attempted to teach and that undergraduates first began to study; but what the right hon. Gentleman did not say, although he is a Scottish Member, was that that revolution and that great leadership had a cause, and that the cause was Scotland. Young men began to come up from Scotland to Balliol—everybody knows that Balliol used to be the Scottish college—with a desire to learn things, and I believe that that incommoded the teachers of Balliol College at first, but that eventually they took to it, and they taught them, and the practice of both learning and teaching extended to all the other colleges of the University, so that now—and we have the Commission's word for it—Oxford, and all the colleges in it, and Cambridge and its colleges are an example to the world in all the technical efficiencies of education, and in what is at
least as important, namely, the moral influence that goes with those technical efficiencies.
I was very much struck by some of the things said by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) regarding the "ladder." He claimed experience as a primary schoolmaster. He also claimed that many of his boys and girls were quite brilliant, but I never knew a primary schoolmaster who did not. I would like to say something to the Labour party and to the hon. Member for Caerphilly from the other side. It has been my fate on many occasions to examine boys from all kinds of schools for scholarships at Oxford. That is the top rung of the ladder. The hon. Member for Caerphilly put forward the view that every boy desiring to get to Oxford or Cambridge is a human creature demanding his inalienable rights. The examiner, who has to decide whether or not to bring a boy with public money to Oxford, feels each time that it is a gamble in human life. Entry to a University opens a great many doors in life; it opens wide vistas of interesting employment. But it is a gamble for the entrant; it closes many doors, and it is the avenue to much disappointment to men who are misfits in the work to which they go. On the other hand, I am all in favour of the ladder, having come up by it myself, and I do not wish it to be thought that I am discouraging the improvement or extension of the ladder. I only wish, as knowing something about it from inside, to moderate the extravagant hopes and expectations regarding education and its possibilities which we are accustomed in this House to hear from the Labour Benches.
I should like to say a few words about continuation schools. It is a very controversial topic. If we were dealing only with Scotland or with France, or with Germany, I should be much more strongly in support of a very wide—indeed, a compulsory—system of continuation schools than I am when I survey the nature of the English race. Perhaps it is given to a Scotsman to see more clearly the difficulties in this matter than is given to some English people, and I would say that the youth of the English race gets rather tired of books and teachers, in spite of the Labour party, about the age of 15. It
does not so happen in Scotland, where they go keenly on with the work of education; but at 15 the English boy thinks he had better go to work; he is tired of teaching. That is not the end of the story. I wish to make an appeal for adult education, instead of adolescent education. In my opinion, the young Englishman gets tired of books and study at 15; but if you can seize him, and use him educationally, between 25 and 30, or 35, you can do a very great deal for him, and a great deal for the nation. I want to suggest that, as money becomes available for the education of people who are no longer children, some of it at least should go to help those in whom, between the ages of 25 and 35, a desire for study and teaching has recrudesced.
One further matter. If I may say so, the strength of the Geddes attack on education has lain not so much in this, that the nation is hard up, as that the nation is disturbed in its mind regarding the quality and value of the elementary education given in the schools. So am I. I do not believe, take it all in all, that the educational value of the primary school to-day is so good as it was three generations ago, for that part of the population which shared then in its benefits. It is open to all of us to diagnose the case, and say what is wrong. At the risk of offending some of the members of the National Union of Teachers. I wish to say that a great contrast exists between the old parish primary education in Scotland and the primary education in the schools to-day, and that, in great part, the contrast is that in the old days in Scotland the children of the parish were taught by a man, and at present women have driven men, not entirely, but almost entirely, out of that profession, and we are suffering in consequence. I should be sorry to put that forward in a purely general way as a mere piece of personal prejudice of the male sex. I would remind the House of a Committee which was appointed in 1916 by the Home Office, and which reported in 1920 to the Board of Education a curious, rather significant, and rather perplexing rise in juvenile crime, 96 per cent. of it by boys, during the War period. In 1915, 1916, and 1917 the Chief Constable of the city a division of which I happen to represent—a city, at least as well behaved, as well conducted, and as little criminal
as any other large city—reported definitely a very large increase in juvenile crime, and put it down to the absence of the fathers from home, and the absence of the male teachers from the schools. This is a curious sidelight upon the value of men in primary education.
Other sidelights can be got, I think, in America, where primary education is probably the worst in the world, where it is wholly the work of women teachers, so much so, that in the Regulations you do not see the pronoun "he" for a teacher, but "she." In Canada the same thing happens. In the Eastern parts of Canada, men teachers are so badly paid that practically none exist. In the Western parts of Canada men teachers are scarce, but they are more numerous than in the Eastern parts of Canada. I think connected with that is the fact that the number of boys committed to reformatories in Eastern Canada is proportionately four times what it is in the West of Canada. I put these figures before the House as a matter which is not susceptible of accurate determination by statistics, but as bearing out my contention that if we seek to obtain full moral influence through education, we must not allow the profession of primary teaching to fall wholly into the hands of women. We must make room for men there, and pay the salaries that will attract the men. There, again, I come back to the Geddes Report. I have seen with great pleasure that the Government do not propose to interfere with the Burnham scale, and that the men who have entered that profession, and the men who may be tempted to enter it in future, may be secure in their expectations.
I should like to make one final appeal. There is a great prejudice at the present moment against expenditure upon education. There is a great prejudice against expenditure on education among many hon. Members of this House, for example, who believe in heavy expenditure for the Army and Navy. I ask the House what it was that the War did for us? I hope I am not uttering a paradox when I say that the War freed us from a very great military danger, and has given us on the military side peace. It might follow reasonably from that, that the nation ought to spend less in preparation for warfare, because of the greater safety
achieved by the War. Look at what the War has done for us among our own people. Is it an exaggeration or paradox to say that the War has unsettled the minds of hundreds of thousands of our population; that it has given the occasion for the spread among them of an alienation and hostility to the main features of our life, of our social structure, of our political constitution; that it has given a stimulus to the teaching of barbarous and disruptive doctrines, and that it has undone, in a measure, all the civilisation?—the ripening and enriching civilisation—of the Victorian age? We have examples in other countries than our own of the evil spirit to which I refer, but it is strong, active and infectious enough here, and I put it to many Members of the Conservative party, who may feel that the Army and Navy ought not to be starved, that our danger now is not military aggression by Germany, but the domestic aggression of uncivilisation, and that the only way by which we can meet that is by putting more spirit, more money, better men and better women into education.
I think the country has taken a wrong turning by divorcing moral teaching and religious teaching from the education of the young in the primary schools to the extent to which that has been done. This is a Christian country. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Question."] Unless in our educational system for the mass of the people we make them feel these moral and religious influences in which we believe, and which are at the bottom of a proper arrangement of the happy life for the population of England, we need not be surprised, and we shall have no one to blame but ourselves, if these young people, when they grow up, show a familiar trend of ill-feeling towards society, towards the fundamental conditions in which they live, and all the follies of a revolutionary spirit which can lead nowhere but to trouble and pain. We cannot be surprised if that be the result. I wish to tack on to this question of expenditure—hearty and handsome expenditure—upon primary education, the other and deeper question of the maintenance in this nation of its traditional morals, its traditional religion and its traditional instinctive sense of the State.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I wish to say a few words as to how this matter will affect people who are called upon to administer the various Education Acts. With regard to the proposed 5 per cent. deduction from teachers' salaries for superannuation purposes, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a part of the salary of the teacher, and was as much taken into account by the Burnham Committee, when fixing salaries, as any other part. Therefore to take anything from the teachers' salaries would be a breach of faith with the teachers. May I remind the House that prior to 1914 the teachers of this country were agitating for a vastly better standard than they had hitherto enjoyed? The War came. The teachers were very loyal to the country, much after the fashion of the miner and other workers, and so long as the cost of living did not advance they were prepared to back up their country, and they withdrew their demand for better conditions. I trust that the President of the Board of Education will take that into account when considering the proposals on the financial side with regard to the 5 per cent. of salaries in aid of superannuation. I just want to warn the House that, in my opinion—for the matter has been investigated—any insurance society, under similar conditions, would give the teachers at least £700 down at the age of 65, and then continue a yearly payment of £250 until they were over 90 years of age. So that the amount of 5 per cent. proposed by the Government to meet superannuation is more than necessary.
May I turn to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Moss Side Division (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst)? He professes to be seeking peace in this country of ours. Such remarks as he made are not likely to help that object. He said the Working classes generally did not love their children quite as well as the middle classes, in the main, and that they would not make any sacrifices for their children—

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I truly never said anything of the sort. I never said anything about loving their children.

Mr. RICHARDSON: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will examine the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, I think he will find that he said deliberately that the working classes were not prepared to make the sacrifices which the middle classes made.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I said they were, in fact, not making the same sacrifices, and not stinting themselves in the same way as large sections of the professional classes.

Mr. RICHARDSON: That way of putting it will satisfy me, but let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that during the years of the War, when wages were good, the working classes were quite content to do with their earnings, and said that their boys and girls could do what was possible to help to win the War, the one by fighting, and the other by work at home, and they would make the wages of the father spread over. They were good citizens. I think the President of the Board of Education met this argument very well indeed when he said that during the past few years the secondary schools were being overrun and filled to overflowing by candidates, many from the elementary schools. So far as I know, and I think I can speak with knowledge, working people are quite prepared to make the sacrifices that other people are making. They are prepared to do for their children what other classes in this country are prepared to do. Give them the opportunity, and you will see whether or not the working classes are prepared to make sacrifices.
We are not fit to govern—so the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to tell us. Again that old saw. It is absolutely untrue. Apparently it is this that other classes are afraid of the Government that the Labour party is going to give them when they have the power. The screeching and the howling that is going on now up and down the country is evidence of the fact that others are afraid of our Government. They tell us we are going to make mischief; that we are Bolshevists, and all that sort of thing. There is considerable fear expressed in that sort of language. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the zeal of the people of the nineteenth century for education and other things of that sort. Well, some of us lived just over the border of the century, and we remember that the zeal for education on the part of some people then was that children of eight, nine and 10 years of age were allowed to leave school without the opportunity of getting a decent education. [An HON. MEMBER: "I went to work at ten."] I remember the time of the
South African War, 1899–1902, and many of those to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred could not even read the reports of the fighting, and what was transpiring, and were dependent upon the children attending the schools of that day. So much for the zeal for education from 1850 down to 1900. I remember 1870 very well. I remember what the working conditions were throughout the land, and particularly in my own county of Durham. The contrast between even then and now is great! Then the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the children under six years of age. He was never further from the real facts when he made the statement he did. I am one of those who have been administering education in my own county since 1904. I am one of those who have squandered thousands and thousands of the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. But the President of the Board of Education, I think, knows of children that have gone into the schools at five years of age and left at seven and have been so far equipped that they could a little later take up the work of standard IV in the Junior School. I am glad the President of the Board of Education has turned down the proposal involved in this matter. I am glad the Government are not accepting that recommendation of the, Geddes Committee, but the change of authorities every three years makes it, I am afraid, if the suggestion to make attendance non-compulsory is carried, that there will be no finality as to what is to be done, and education is going to suffer extremely. There must be a stated age, I think, from which every child should attend school, and I trust we are not going to alter it. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the spirit in which the teaching should be given. I agree that the right spirit should prevail, and be inculcated, but after all the teacher cannot live without a fair salary. He must of necessity have the wherewithal to make ends meet.
I was glad the President was agreed that the teachers should be a contented body, and that this was essential so far as education was concerned. I trust we are not going back in any shape or form to the old state of things. I wish to press upon hon. Members that, after all, the teaching profession is the root and basis of all other professions. If you do not
get good teachers, then every other profession, the medical and so on, is going to suffer. Why should the men who are making other people, who are moulding the men and women of the future, and making them fit for the higher services of the country, have to live on less than the people whom they are making? We of the Labour party are being lectured here, there, and everywhere, but a lot of this lecturing shows a certain lack of discrimination. Let me tell certain hon. Members that we were no party to setting up the Geddes Commission. It was none of ours. If hon. Members opposite have made any mistake, then my suggestion to them is to lecture their own party rather than UB. We know what it is not to have had education, and we are determined as men can be that no child of the future shall suffer as some of us have suffered.
Let me now deal with one or two matters arising out of the Geddes Report. We are not defending the 1908 Act. We are defending the 1902 Act. As to the Act of 1918, very little of it has been put into operation, but we say now, in regard to the size of the classes, the age of the children, and several other matters, that they arise under the Act of 1902, so that if any change is made, then we are likely to get back to 1902 rather than 1918. It is a very serious matter to me all this business of education. I earnestly appeal to the Government not to send us back. It has taken all that could be done to accomplish what has been accomplished. The results have been so good—they have been recited to you—as to the diminution of juvenile and other crime in every shape and form—the industrial schools and reformatories being minus inhabitants—and all this has come out of the educational work. You cannot surely try to save money by doing a terrible injustice to the young children of the country. I plead with my hon. Friends, do not attack where there is no offensive to be met.
7.0 P.M.
The children of this country cannot speak for themselves, and it means taking the line of least resistance when you seek to save whatever is possible on expenditure on those who cannot reply for themselves. I admit that expenditure has grown from £34,000,000 to £50,000,000, but largely speaking that is due, at least to the
extent of 70 per cent., as my hon. Friend pointed out, to the increase in teachers' salaries. We must not forget that the population of this country has expanded, and that we have far more to deal with than we had two or three years ago. Every year brings additional students to elementary, secondary, and higher education if we are going to keep the standard up. Behind it all is the prevention of expansion. In our secondary education all educational establishments right throughout the country have been preparing for an expansion. Much has been done, much remains to be done, and if these grants are cut down by anything like what is proposed by the Board—I think it is £3,000,000 in secondary education-—it will do an incalculable amount of harm for many years. I hope that the President of the Board is going to put his back up against the block grants system. That would mean that the most retrograde authorities would have the greatest excuse possible for doing nothing, and I want those who have to see that education is carried out to have some power in this matter. Fifty per cent, of the expenditure of any local authority is being met by the Government, and I hope that system will be continued in the future.
I want to say a word with regard to the training of teachers, which is a very important matter. I know only too well that the Minister of Education realises the great difficulties the authorities have had in the past to get sufficient trained teachers. It is true you can get plenty of teachers who call themselves teachers, but we want a higher standard of teacher inside our elementary school. I believe-that the higher standard of teacher you put in the greater saving are you going to make with regard to secondary education. I am one of the people who think—and I want the Minister to take note of these words—that what can be done by a boy or girl at 11 years of age inside a secondary school can also be done inside an elementary school. By that means we are going to save thousands of pounds for the building of schools for children between the ages of 11 and 14. Of course, it cannot be done with teachers who have to take 30, 40, 50 and 60 pupils. That must be brought down to the numbers in the secondary school. If these teachers with special training are brought into an elementary school you are going very
largely to reduce your expenditure, and, most of all, you are going to get rid of the English boy of 15 who, my hon. Friend said, did not care for books. I say the reason boys do not care for books is that from 11 the bright boy who cannot get further is doing the self-same work for three years. He becomes absolutely surfeited, and when the time comes to leave school he refuses to look at a book. Give that boy a chance of reading that he ought to have, give him a chance to know that he has not acquired everything he can be taught at 14, let him feel that there is something higher to be attained, and I am certain that the British boy will emulate and eclipse every other boy in the world. I want that chance for the boy, and I want the President of the Board of Education to see that there are sufficient teachers. I want good men and women. We have made it possible to say that there is a reasonable salary. It is not good enough to have the worst of what remains from the other professions as a teacher. What we want is the best material in the world, and if we get that things will be vastly better.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words with regard to what the hon. Member for West Leeds said about the educational ladder. We here are seeking a great, broad highway from the primary schools right through to the universities. We seek no more than other hon. Members on the other side of the House, or than men and women who have had more opportunities. We seek no more than they have; only the opportunity for our children to go forward as well as theirs. We are asking only that brains shall count and not money, and when you have opened that highway I want to make no class distinction, but merely to obtain the best men and women that this country can produce. I want to make an A1 nation; I am anxious to make an A1 nation; I am also anxious to make an A1 people.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I should have liked nothing better than to be permitted to continue the discussion which has been proceeding for a great part of this afternoon. The question which we have been discussing is a vital question, and personally I should have been very glad to have had an opportunity to
remove certain misconceptions that arose from the speech I delivered in this House when I spoke some weeks ago. But I must resist that temptation because I want to call the attention of the House to an entirely different matter.
To raise a question of what I may call pure finance on the Consolidated Fund Bill is, I am afraid, a rather daring deviation from the established conventions of this House, but I hope the House will forgive me, and will agree that the occasion is not an inappropriate occasion. By the passing of this Bill we reach a very important stage in the financial history of the year. We gather up, so to say, the results of the financial debates and discussions of the last two months. We are now in a position—and have not before been in a position—to realise, and I hope to realise to the full, the financial responsibilities which lie ahead of us for the next 12 months. Perhaps I am over sanguine in saying that we realise it to the full, but I think we realise it in very large measure. After Easter we shall, of course, plunge into a new phase of the problem, the problem of Ways and Means. We shall then have to consider how we are to meet our liabilities, but that is another stage in our discussions. Thus far, we have only been considering the expenditure side of the account. We now know—at least, I hope we know—pretty well what is the burden we shall have to shoulder next year. That would be true of any Consolidated Fund Bill at the end of March, but I want to submit to the House that this particular Consolidated Fund Bill has a special measure of significance, and for this reason.
The hopes and the expectations both of this House and of the country at large—perhaps more of the country at large than of this House—the hopes and expectations of the taxpayers of the country groaning under a load of taxation which1 has become almost intolerable, have been, raised to a very high pitch. By what have they been raised? They have been raised by the appointment of a Committee of business men who were to wield a mighty axe and slay the dragon of extravagance. That Committee has presented its Re-port, I venture to say one of the most remarkable documents, remarkable both in the comprehensiveness of its survey, and remarkable also in the minuteness of
its investigation. It is one of the most remarkable documents in our financial history. I am not referring to the document in these terms because I subscribe to every detailed recommendation that the Geddes Committee have made, or because I think that the Report was in any sense verbally inspired, but because it has for the first time enabled the person who is called the man-in-the-street—why he should be I have never been able to understand—to realise precisely how we stand in regard to national expenditure. The country has had several weeks in which to study that Report, the Government Departments have had, I suppose, several months in which to study that Report, or a great part of it, and we are now in a position to see how far its recommendations have been taken to heart in framing the Estimates for the coming year.
I am not going to ask the House to traverse ground which we have been covering during the Debates in Committee of Supply. That is not my intention at all. What I want to do is to ask hon. Members of the House to realise precisely how we stand as regards our financial position as a whole, of course only on the side of expenditure. What is our position? We have had all the Estimates now presented. The Navy has asked for £64,000,000 odd, the Army for £62,000,000 odd, the Air Service for nearly £11,000,000, and the Civil Service and Revenue Departments for £383,500,000 in round figures; a total—and it is the total that I want to impress on the attention of the House—of £521,630,348. Let us call it £521,500,000. That total of £521,500,000, represented by the Estimates laid before this House, compares with the total of £603,000,000, as presented in the Budget of last year. It was 10 months ago in the middle of the coal dispute that the Treasury began to exhibit some signs of alarm, and on the 13th May, last year, the Treasury addressed to the various Departments a Circular urging the necessity of securing a large reduction in the Estimates for the financial year 1922–23. The Treasury, referring to the Budget speech of the Lord Privy Seal on the 25th April, showed that on the expenditure side, on the present basis, including debt
redemption, the amount to be raised was not likely to be less than £950,000,000. The Lord Privy Seal said:
Clearly that is too high and it must be reduced. It is our business to reduce it if we can.
Proceeding, the Treasury Circular says:
So far as can be seen at present the ordinary revenue of the State in 1922–23, even if no taxation is remitted in that year, is not likely to exceed £950,000,000. Against this sum there must be set in the first place not less than £365,000,000 for debt (interest only) and other Consolidated Fund Services, and in the second place a substantial sum, not less than £100,000,000, to meet already existing contractual liabilities to holders of particular War Loans and some part of the debt maturing for payment in 1922–23.
They contain no provisions for the Floating Debt or for sinking fund charges, but it will be seen that even under the minimum provision of £465,000,000 out, of £950,000,000, that leaves a balance of £485,000,000 for all ordinary Supply services. That is the meaning of the Treasury Circular presented in May of last year. According to the Circular, there was to be a balance of only £485,000,000 only for all ordinary Supply services. The Treasury very properly asked the Departments to reduce their Estimates for the coming year 1922–23 by the sum of £113,000,000, bringing them down from the £603,000,000 provided for in the Budget of last year to £490,000,000. That was the calculation made in May.
The House will remember what happened in the latter part of the summer. During the summer of 1921 things went from bad to worse, the industrial war continued, trade went from bad to worse, more and more expenditure was called for to meet unemployment, and so in the autumn the desperate device was adopted of appointing a Business Committee. What is the position revealed by the investigations of the Geddes Committee? They found when they began to go into the question that the Departments which had been appealed to by the Treasury in May to reduce their Estimates by £113,000,000 were preparing to reduce the Estimates for the coming year, not by £113,000,000, but by £75,000,000. I am sorry to have to inflict such detailed figures on the House, but the point I am going to make is of great importance. The Estimates, let us always remember, started from a figure of £603,000,000 as the Budget Estimate of last year. The
Departments were preparing, when the Geddes Committee started work, to reduce that by £75,000,000, and so reduce the Estimates for the coming year to £528,000,000. Then the Geddes Committee were further instructed to get off another £100,000,000, and what did they do? They did as a matter of fact make recommendations of reductions which amounted in the aggregate to very nearly £87,000,000. Those were the aggregate reductions proposed by the Geddes Committee. They made it clear in their Report that there were further reductions in view, for they said:
In order to make the further economies necessary, we have invited your attention to a reduction (1) in the naval expenditure, as a result of the Washington Conference; (2) in the naval expenditure under the heading of oil stocks and oil storage; and (3) in military expenditure upon a review of the foreign garrisons abroad. We are confident that under these heads more than £13,250,000 necessary to complete the total of £100,000,000 can he realised.
Their actual recommendations amounted to something short of £87,000,000. I ask the House to observe the position in which we actually stand to-day. Starting again from the basic figure of £603,000,000, the Departments have knocked off, or were prepared to knock off, £75,000,000 so reducing the coming Estimates to £528,000,000, and the Geddes Committee recommended a further cut of £87,000,000 so reducing the total Estimates for the coming year to £441,000,000. I hope I have made the figure clear to the House.
Speaking about a month ago—on 1st March—on the Geddes Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he saw his way to reducing the Estimates—I think his figure was to £484,000,000 for the coming year. I want to ask him, to-night whether he adheres to that figure? Because, when I look at the Estimates themselves, I find that the aggregate of those Estimates amounts to £521,500,000, and not to the £484,000,000 mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 1st March. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me that I ought to compare these figures, not with the £603,000,000 of last year's Budget, but with the actual expenditure of the year which is coming to an end, which is £603,000,000 plus the Supplementary Estimates of £62,000,000, amounting in all to £665,000,000. If that is the line the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to adopt, I do not see why I should do that.
I am trying to compare like with like, and compare the position to-day with the position a year ago, and I am prepared to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advantage of two further months of extended knowledge, and compare the position to-day with the reading of the Treasury circular of last year. I adhere to my figure of £603,000,000. That was the Estimate for 1921–22. I take off the £75,000,000 of Departmental savings, reducing the amount to £528,000,000, and I compare that with the total aggregate of the Estimates now presented to the House, and that aggregate amounts to £521,500,000.
Where, then, are the £87,000,000 of the Geddes cuts? Where have they gone to? Taking the aggregate expenditure as a whole, the Geddes cuts of £87,000,000 have been reduced to £6,500,000, and that is the aggregate result of the falling of the formidable axe and the proposals of this masterly and exhaustive Report. Why am I urging this matter on the anxious attention of the House of Commons at this moment? I am doing so for this reason. We have been discussing during these last months the Estimates in detail, and when you are doing that you are sometimes a little apt to lose your perspective of the whole. One Department after another has come down to this House and, with the most disarming modesty, they have shown that they have gone very near to the fulfilment of the injunctions of the Economy Committee.
Now look at the aggregate result! What do all these efforts of all the Departments come to? As I make them out they come to £6,500,000, which surely is a striking illustration of the tiny mouse begotten of the labour of mighty mountains. There is one other point that I wish to urge because the House is well aware that the Supply Services with which alone I have dealt down to this point are only one portion of our expenditure. In addition to the ordinary Supply Services which are going to cost next year £521,500,000 we shall have Consolidated Fund Services of £371,000,000, making in all £892,500,000. Now I invite the attention of the House to the words which I read from the Treasury Circular of the 13th May which shows that in addition to the
charge for debt which the Circular put at £365,000,000 and other Consolidated Fund Services there would be wanted a substantial sum which the Circular put at £100,000,000 to meet already existing contractual liabilities to the holders of particular war loans. To the £892,500,000 we must therefore add another £100,000,000 making an aggregate of £992,000,000 against a maximum revenue anticipated last May of £950,000,000. It is perfectly obvious on the showing of the Government itself that you must by one means or another get your ordinary Supply Services down by at least another £80,000,000 and that would bring it to the exact Geddes figure of £441,000,000 for the coming year. Even that would only give you a surplus of £50,000,000 on the existing basis of taxation—only £50,000,000 for all possible contingencies and possible Supplementary Estimates to which we have been so long accustomed in this House. That is, of course, on the existing basis of taxation. Everyone in this House and in the country 'hopes, however, that the existing basis of taxation will not be maintained. That is a question into which, I suppose, it would be out of order for me to enter. At any rate, I do not propose to go into it just now. The House will be very pleased to learn that I am getting very near to my final calculations. The Consolidated Fund Services, £365,000,000 plus £100,000,000; total, £465,000,000. Ordinary Supply Services (the Geddes' figure), £441,000,000; total, £906,000,000. That would give on the basis of existing taxation a surplus of £44,000,000 for the coming year, for Supplementary Estimates and so forth. I venture to contend that if we are to have a chance of reducing taxation we want another £100,000,000 off the Estimates somehow, and even then we shall only have got down, if we get that further £100,000,000, to the figure contained in the Memorandum of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Lord Privy Seal, which he gave for the information of the country and the House in October, 1919. I ought to remind the House that that was very soon revised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I do not want to make any point which is not fair. But the right hon. Gentleman did in October, 1919, give us an estimate of expenditure
in a normal year, and that estimate was based, as he told us, on the following assumptions:

"(1) That all War service will have ceased and that trading Departments (i.e., food, shipping, etc.) will have been wound up.
(2) That all subsidies (broad, railways, unemployment donations, etc.) would have been withdrawn.
(3) That no further loans would be made to the Allies and Dominions.
(4) That the training scheme for ex-soldiers, etc. will have been completed, and nothing new arisen in their place, and
(5) That the cost of labour and materials will not have differed materially from that now obtaining."

Of all these conditions the most important is the last, because the cost of labour and materials does differ materially from what it was in 1919, and it differs to the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these calculations. Prices, I am told, to-day for material, etc., are nothing like what they were in October, 1919. There is one other point in the Memorandum of 1919 to which I want to draw the attention of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that date estimated the War Pensions at £120,000,000. We are all very glad to learn that they are going to be £90,000,000, so that he gets the advantage of £30,000,000 on that one item alone. His aggregate expenditure was £808,000,000 for a normal year in his original Memorandum of October, 1919. I and many others who have given some attention to this matter have time after time in this House expressed the considered opinion that about £800,000,000, the figure given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1919, is the very maximum which we can at present afford. We have also firmly expressed the opinion that the only means of attaining to that desirable end is by a rigid rationing of the Departments, not an arbitrary one, but a reasoned rationing of the Departments. That is the real pith of the Geddes Report. They say t
In our opinion the time has come when the Government must say to these Departments"—
the fighting Departments—
how much money they can have, and look to them to frame their proposals accordingly.
That principle, as I have said, was suggested by the Geddes Committee as ap-
plicable to the fighting Departments. I submit it must be applied equally to all the other Departments, and under the circumstances of to-day there is even more need that it should be applied to the other Departments. It is only, I am convinced, by a stern application of this principle, by a stern and continuous application of it, that equilibrium can be restored in our national finances, that the grievous burden of taxation can be lightened, that the wheels of industry can be set in motion, and that the hideous nightmare of unemployment can in some measure be dissipated.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has dealt with the very complicated situation with that genuine zeal for economy with which we are all familiar. I do not propose to follow him in the queries he has addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there are one or two points I wish, if possible, to make. The first is this: to remind the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the real question we should address ourselves to now is not what was our expenditure in the year succeeding the War, nor what will our expenditure be this year, but what expenditure the nation can afford. That really is the question which we have to answer. This year, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the good fortune to have raised the Income Tax on the basis of three good years. Next year he will have to raise it on the basis of two good years and one bad year, and in the year following—I do not know whether he will be responsible for that or not—he or his successor will have to face the terrible prospect of raising it on two bad years and one good one. I do not propose to project that very lamentable vision into any further years. That is where our main source of revenue arises, and that is the prospect with which the House and the country are faced. At present, to put it in more popular phraseology, out of every 12 months in the year those who pay Income Tax at the rate of 6s. in the £ are devoting four months' payments to the service of the State. One-third of the Income Tax at-68. in the £, quite apart from the Super-tax and other taxation, goes to the service of the State. One week in every three is devoted to the same altruistic service.
These are striking and appalling facts. If we had an abounding trade, or if we were fairly certain of the luture—that next year would see a revival of trade, not a mere temporary flutter, but one based on such a foundation as will prove to us that our future will be progressively satisfactory in regard to finance,—then we might take a more cheerful view, but no one has any confidence at all that that is going to be the case. The most we can hope on any ground of reason is that we shall not get very much worse this year, and that next year we may find ourselves safely planted on the bottom and begin to rise to a higher and more satisfactory position. That being the case, and it is the only reasonable view to take of it, what is the position of the House of Commons in its greatest duty, its financial responsibility to the nation? It is without any doubt at all to address itself to the Estimates of this year with a determination to see that every possible economy is effected. Our duty is not only to take the Estimates which are furnished to us and the recommendations which are made in regard to them, but to take unto ourselves the task of seeing whether any further reductions can be made. That is what we ought to do. I realise that this is a counsel of perfection.
I know this House intimately. I have been in it for 14 years. I sat on the back benches, and for six years I was occupied with the duties of the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite justified in what he may have in his mind at the moment, but when we propose economies, how many Members do we get support from in Committee? Our duty is to rise above the pressure from constituents or from powerfully organised bodies and to discharge our public duty. I do not know how far I shall be able to do that myself. One, of course, realises one's own imperfections just as much as one realises the imperfections of others. But that is what we ought to do. To get down to this most serious business, and this year to lay the foundations for the much more difficult financial years yet to come. Taking the basis of the Income Tax alone—in regard to that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that I am right in saying that the position must be serious indeed next year and the yearafter—how can
it be done? It cannot be done in the limited time at the disposal of the House in dealing with these Estimates. We ought to have more time to deal with them. This is an old and favourite subject of mine, and if the Leader of the House were here, I would urge it on him. We have 20 days for Supply, and very often these days are not devoted to their proper use, and we go on to irrelevant topics, but that does not alter the fact of what the duty of the House is, and we ought to have at least 30 days for Supply this year. There should be no difficulty about that. The legislative programme of the Government is the most modest which has been presented by any Government for the past 10 years. I am not discussing its merits, but it consists of merely trivial Bills, and there are vast tracts in the time of the Parliamentary Session which ought to be devoted to the overmastering topic of national finance. When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, he should be able to say that he, as the chief financial trustee in this great matter of finance, will use his best endeavour to see that more time is given to this most important question of discussing supplies.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): In this discussion, and in all the previous discussions in which I have taken part on the question of finance, I have listened to some very excellent sentiments with which I entirely agree. The difficulty is that I get very little help from a large body of the House when I try to put these sentiments into practice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is to-day in this happy position that he can quite rightly criticise expenditure on the part of the Government, while his friends in the country are not only sympathising with but abetting criticism of the Government on behalf of the unfortunate victims of the curtailment of expenditure. He therefore seeks to get votes on both hands, on the one side because the Government is extravagant, and on the other because we seek to control extravagance and are dismissing some of their constituents who are the victims of restriction. I agree entirely—I am sure that the House will acknowledge my sincerity in this matter—with the
necessity of curtailing expenditure in every possible direction, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that I have, at least, made some considerable endeavour in that direction. I am sure it is true, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott), that high taxation is a burden upon industry, and that in order to relieve many of the troubles we are at present suffering from, it will be necessary to get rid of that burden to the greatest degree possible. For that purpose it is necessary to reduce expenditure. These are general sentiments about which there is no difference of opinion. The only difficulty is the practical application of those very admirable principles.
There are one or two figures I would like to clear up now. The House, I am sure, will not expect me to repeat the elaborate sets of figures which I gave upon the last occasion when this matter was dealt with. I think that at that time my right hon. Friend by some mischance was not in the House, and we did not have the benefit of his opinion upon the proposals we were making, but equally I think he did not get the benefit of our reply upon the questions which evidently have disturbed his mind, because many of the problems he has dealt with have already been dealt with in the speech I made on the previous occasion. There is, however, one figure which has created misapprehension. I stated, and this, I think, has not been observed, that by putting in force the reductions which we were able to accept from the Geddes Committee, I could bring the ordinary Supply expenditure down to a figure of £484,000,000. My right hon. Friend says: "You make it £522,000,000."That is where the whole fault has arisen. The figure of £522,000,000 is not only the ordinary Supply expenditure, but contains a large figure for special Supply expenditure.
That figure for special Supply expenditure is £60,000,000. He will no doubt say: "You have succeeded in bringing your ordinary Supply expenditure down to below £484,000,000, because if you take £60,000,000 from £522,000,000 you are left with £462,000,000, which is £22,000,000 less than the £484,000,000 to which you refer. "That is perfectly true. The explanation is that in the £484,000,000 there was included £22,000,000 of expenditure
which applied to Ireland. That is an expenditure for next year which has now to be deducted, but that does not mean an extra saving of £22,000,000, because at the same time as we save that expenditure on Ireland we are losing the revenue from Ireland. The figure of £522,000,000 is made up thus: £484,000,000 of ordinary Supply expenditure which included Ireland; less £22,000,000 applicable to Ireland, bringing the figure to £462,000,000, and there is added to that figure £60,000,000 of special expenditure, making £522,000,000, a figure which of itself naturally would cause some misapprehension. When my right hon. Friend compares £603,000,000 with £522,000,000, again he makes an erroneous comparison, because the figure of £603,000,000 did not include the special supplies and, therefore, whatever was in that figure for special Supply expenditure has to be deducted before we get a fair comparison. I think that explanation will clear up the whole difficulty.
If my right hon. Friend takes the explanations which I have given, I think they will disabuse him of the view that in point of fact we have only adopted £6,000,000 of the reductions which are proposed by the Geddes Committee. He asks: What has become of the suggested reductions of £87,000,000? As I explained to the House, we have adopted £64,000,000 of these reductions. But it falls to be reduced by a figure of £10,000,000 because we cannot put all these reductions into force so as to realise the benefit of all of them in the course of the next year. But we adopt them for next year and we shall succeed in realising our hope of the £54,000,000 reduction recommended by the Geddes Committee.
My right hon. Friend complains that we have not adopted all of them. He says we ought to have deducted another £100,000,000. It is idle to talk of reducing expenditure in the vague. You can only reduce expenditure by cuts and economies in particular details. It is not any good to say to us, "You must effect economies by a certain amount," if you then vote in this House for expenditure which makes it impossible to realise those reductions. Where are the places in which the Government has found it impossible
to follow the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. They are all included in the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and Education. In regard to all the other Services we have practically realised the same amounts as the Geddes Committee suggests, and in some of them we propose to realise greater reductions than they suggested. There is the Pensions Department, where we shall save a figure of £6,000,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That was overestimated.

Sir R. HORNE: No, that is not a fair statement. In point of fact, we propose to realise that by administrative economies. My right hon. Friend may say, if he likes, that that is an overestimate, but in point of fact it is effected by cutting down salaries in certain directions and making economies of that kind. The point I am making is that the places where we fail to establish economies to the full extent which the Geddes Committee has recommended are in those great services, the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and in Education. I would like to remind the House of what I explained before, that so far as the Navy and Army are concerned, the only reductions which we did not see our way to realise are in connection with matters where no specification was given by the Geddes Committee, where we were left in the dark as to how they thought those economies could be obtained. But, taking them as they are, these are the services in which we cannot see our way to obtain economies to the extent they recommend. I want to remind the House of what has happened during the last ten days. We have had the Army Vote before the House; we have had the Navy Vote; we have had the Air Vote, and we have had a discussion upon education in the House this afternoon. Let me remind the House what has happened. Was there any suggestion made on the Army Estimates that too much was being spent upon our military forces?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Certainly.

Sir R. HORNE: I venture to say if you will examine the Debate on this question, you will find that the great difficulty of the House was that they thought we were taking too big risks in cutting down expenditure on the Army. I ask my right
hon. Friend if I am not giving a true representation of the character of that Debate? Does my right hon. Friend suggest that there was an appreciable body of opinion in this House in favour of cutting down the Army Estimates further?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes. It depends upon what my right hon. Friend means by an appreciable body. Our numbers in the Lobby were small. I agree the majority in the House of Commons was in his favour and against us.

8.0 P.M.

Sir R. HORNE: The most important part of the Debate, as I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree if he had been here or if he had read it since, was taken up with discussing our military position in reference to the weakness of the force with which we are going to be provided in future.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By the military men.

Sir R. HORNE: Not only by the military men, but by the House as a whole. We had a precisely similar experience with regard to the Navy. It was the same with regard to the Air Force. What has happened this afternoon with regard to education? We failed to realise £12,000,000 of the reduction in expenditure which was recommended by the Geddes Committee. Has there been anyone who could say to-day that we should have cut education expenditure still lower down than we are proposing to do? There has not been a voice raised in that direction. How is it possible to say we must realise another £100,000,000 when we go through this experience every time we put up an Estimate, and we find that the whole weight of opinion of the House is against us? I find not only that this is the course of conduct in this House. It is reflected in the Press outside. I read persistently in the Press attacks on the Government for not achieving the reductions which the Geddes Committee recommended, but I do not see the same Press urging us to cut the Army down or the Air Force or the Navy, or suggesting that we ought to reduce teachers' salaries so as to bring the Education Vote down to a lower figure. If people are going to indulge in criticism
they must have the courage of their views, and that is something one seldom finds in this matter. We shall probably have some testing Votes in the near future on other matters, but one sees the House that ordinarily cries for economy in general voting for large extra supplies on particular things on which they think their constituents will be against them if they do not vote in a particular direction. We ought to get rid of that kind of sham and put ourselves into a position to resist the persistent demand made from every part of the country—great organisations and large bodies of constituents—for particular forms of expenditure, and I hope very much the maxims the right hon. Gentleman has laid down in connection with the matter will be followed, not only by himself, but by all those who support him.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have listened to the usual recurrent homily from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has no friends. No one loves him. He proposes every economy imaginable and the House turns him down. I commiserate with him. He is Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Government whose ideal of governnig is always to discover what is the majority behind it. What is popular is their guide to salvation, and it is rather difficult to discover what is popular when you are cutting down taxation. The hon. and learned historian who sits for Oxford City introduced the Debate by telling us he was going to discuss pure finance. I like that epithet. We on this side of the House sometimes cast doubts upon the immaculate conception of that subject. I think it is on pure finance that we want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to concentrate his attention and to give us a little light and leading. I am sorry he has merely given us the usual homily about how good he wants to be and cannot be, instead of trying to realise the far more important question of what is the Treasury's actual mind on the question whether it is best to inflate or deflate the currency. That seems to me to be the critical question that our Treasury has to face, because the unfortunate Government we have in front of us is trying on one side to stop Government expenditure and on the other side to increase it—trying to stop it in order to improve trade and trying to increase it in order to increase trade. It
is not often that you find one Government trying to do both things, but this Government does. The axe came along about six months earlier than the idea that it was necessary to spend Government money in order to meet unemployment, and we had a curious instance of the Government economising on some subjects and at the same time urging the Board of Agriculture to spend more money on afforestation, to do something which would not be done ordinarily as sound finance in order to solve unemployment, and at the same time cut down somewhere else so as to improve trade. I wish the Government would make up its mind which horse to ride. Is it best for the unemployed position of the country to increase employment by squandering money or to increase employment by reducing taxation? You cannot have it both ways.
It is difficult to argue with a convinced Tariff Reformer, but it is necessary that the Treasury should have a clear mind on the subject. If you are going to benefit trade by lending large sums of money to foreign countries, or to the Colonies, in order that they may order goods here which they otherwise would not order here—if that is the right solution that means more Government expenditure. It means possibly deferred expenditure, but the rest involves ultimately a certain amount of Government expenditure. Is that right or wrong? Or might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is it advisable for this country to be a creditor nation or a debtor nation? Sometimes we are told the whole- position would be solved if only we owed Germany several thousand millions instead of Germany owing us several thousand millions. Of course mere Labour Members cannot possibly know what is the best position for the country to be in. If we owe other people a thousand millions everyone here will be busy manufacturing in order to send a thousand millions of goods to the other people who want them. On the other hand, if Germany owes us £1,000,000,000 all the Germans are employed in manufacturing the goods which we want and all our people are standing idle. Which is the right position? Do we want to be a creditor or a debtor nation? Would you rather owe or be owed £1,000,000,000? I do not know which the Treasury believe in, but the other day we had a deputation to the Prime Minister
to urge upon him the necessity of so amending the foreign policy that the trade of this country might be improved, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) pointed out that in France there was no unemployment to-day. The Prime Minister sprang into the breach at once. He said, "No. There is no unemployment in France. That is because the Germans have destroyed the industrial area of France. "The result of that destruction evidently has been the employment of the French people. I suggest that in that case we had better burn down London and improve employment by building it up again. It is the same argument. But I do not know where to have this Government. Sometimes they are all for war or earthquakes or fires to increase employment and at other times they come here with their pure, hard faced finance and say, "No. Cut down every sort of expenditure. Save money. That is the way to cure unemployment." Which way does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think is the best way? Has it ever occurred to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to make up his mind whether we want to be a creditor or a debtor nation, whether we want to inflate or deflate the currency.
Several leading bankers, Mr. Walter Leaf, for instance, and, I think, his predecessor, Mr. McKenna, think a reasonable amount of inflation is now desirable. Is that pure finance or is it pure nonsense? Do we want the £ to be restored to its gold standard, or do we want it to pursue the mark down to 6d? Which is good for trade? Which will ultimately help the situation? These are questions I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer and not to get up and tell us that the House is such a wicked lot of people that it is always trying to be popular and thwarting the energetic Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sees the way to save 6d. but is not allowed to do it by the wicked House of Commons. We are told this year the Government are going to have a bright brain wave in order to enable them to reduce the Income Tax by 2s. in the £, and the bright brain wave apparently is not to pay pensions out of revenue, but by borrowing. That is what is called inflation. I wonder if that is supposed to be good or bad for the country. It will be so interesting, if the Government bring that forward, to
see what argument they bring forward in favour of increasing debt instead of paying it off. It may be the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us it is all very well to criticise them and ask them what their views are, but what should we do? I can tell him quite frankly. We believe not in inflation but in deflation. We want the currency deflated and the £ restored to its normal gold value, and we propose to do that quite simply by a capital levy, in which the money will all be earmarked for the repayment of the debt. We believe by a capital levy, if you like, in lieu of the existing Death Duties, and recurring at fixed periods, not used in any way as revenue, we shall be able to pay off part of the National Debt, and to put our finances in such a position that we shall be able to convert the balance of the National Debt. That is sound finance. That is pure finance. Unfortunately, this Government dare not tackle it that way. But I think if the right hon. Gentleman would speak quite frankly in the privacy of his private apartment, he would admit that the foundation of any restoration of trade in this country depends not upon balancing income and expenditure but in starting to pay off that load of debt, in order to cheapen capital and to reduce the rate of interest on the balance, and I think he would admit that it is only possible to do that when you do not merely raise sufficient revenue to balance expenditure but go in for a drastic capital levy which shall found the finances of this country on the good old principle of saving instead of on the bad new principle of extravagance.
You can meet emergencies by extravagance, you can meet emergencies, no doubt, by giving everyone £10 apiece. The immediate result of endowing every man, woman and child with £10 in new bank notes, signed by Fisher or Bradbury, would be a boom in trade. There would be any amount of money to spend. The demands upon manufacturers would increase, and that too often is the sort of policy—exaggerated, I admit, but the sort of policy this Government has adopted to meet the situation. You may meet a temporary emergency in that way but, unfortunately, you always have the horrible result of Monday morning following. As a result of any such inflation and of any such extravagance, although it may be done with the best
of motives, you always have deeper depression and more unemployment, and it always becomes more difficult to return to those orthodox lines of finance upon which this Debate was to turn.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: May I say one word in support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who suggested that it would be well if the Government could see their way to give the House more days to discuss the Estimates. It is perfectly true, as he pointed out, that the legislative programme this year, thank goodness, is a very restricted one. Apart from the House of Lords Reform Resolutions, there is practically nothing of first-class importance with which we have to deal. That being so, and as, obviously, the first and primary duty of this House is to look after finance—we are elected more for that than to legislate—it does seem rather ridiculous that we should be restricted to these 20 days for Supply. It is only a modern innovation, because there used to be a great deal more time allotted in olden days, and sometimes there were no restrictions at all. When the state of our national finances is the most important thing to discuss, and when we have the opportunity of devoting more time to finance, it does seem to mo that we should return to our first duty of looking after finance and that we should be given more days to discuss the Estimates than the 20 days which we have had allotted to us for the last few years. May I therefore enforce the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, with the approval, I am sure, of those who sit behind him, that the Government, if they can see their way, should give us these extra days? Nobody is asking this in a hostile spirit, but simply in order to try and help the Government to economise wherever possible.
The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) advocated what he called sound finance, and sound finance in his idea, apparently, is a capital levy. I have a great deal of objection to a capital levy for two reasons. First, it is repudiation or legalised robbery, and, secondly, it is a further extension of the Death Duties, which really mean that the country, instead of living upon its income, is using capital money which belongs to the country for the expenditure of the year.
If you once extend that system of using chunks of capital every year for the services of the year, then our finances, which are bad enough already, will soon reach a stage from which it will be impossible to recover.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and I am sure it is perfectly true, that the Government have carried out practically all the recommendations of the Geddes Committee except those which deal with the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Education, and that the reason they had not carried out all the recommendations with regard to those four Services was that they would not get the support of this House if they did so. Even the economies which they did put forward in respect of those four Services received but little support from any side of the House. There is a certain amount of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I would point out to him, and especially to hon. Members opposite, when they complain that too much is being spent on the Army, that, taking the amount of money spent on the Army this year and reducing it to the prices which existed in 1914, the Army this year is costing us £10,000,000 less than it did in 1914.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are much safer.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Our commitments are infinitely greater than they were in 1914. I do not know whether it is in order to go into that matter, but, as was pointed out by the gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), though Germany may have disappeared, there are to-day as many armed men in Europe as there were then, and we have commitments all over the world which we did not have then. As far as the Army is concerned, the Government have done the utmost in the way of economy that they possibly could have done. The same applies to the Navy and to the Air Force. Is there not, however, some way in which we could save on those three Services which the Government have not suggested? It is never a popular thing to suggest reductions in pay or salary, but I do not think it would be unjust if we said that after a certain date, say in two
or three months' time, any man who joined the Army or the Navy or the Air Force should have considerably less pay than the men already in those Services. Of course, it would apply to all ranks. Everyone who joined the fighting Forces say from the 1st May would have considerably less pay than the men at present in those Services. It is well known that when the rates of pay were fixed a couple of years ago prices were much higher and trade was much better, and we could now get men for considerably less than we are paying the men at present in the Services. I do not see why the State should go on paying an inflated wage to people in this particular branch of the State service when they can get men under the voluntary system for considerably less. I think we could make considerable economies in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were economies in education to the extent of £12,000,000, recommended by the Geddes Committee, which they had not carried out, partly because, I take it, they thought that they were not sound, and partly because they were afraid of a popular outcry. Taking even the values of 1914 and comparing them with the values of 1922, we are to-day spending substantially more upon education than we spent in 1914. Education is an excellent thing, but, like other excellent things, you cannot have it unless you have the money to pay for it, and it is unreasonable for anyone to expect us to pay substantially more in 1922 than in 1914, considering the enormous debt of the nation and the unemployment that there is in the country. I think that there the Government have not shown the courage that they might have shown, and that they ought to have made a far bigger cut in education.
I have never been satisfied that we want any new Ministry compared with 1914, except the Ministry of Pensions. Nobody has given me any real reason why, considering the state of other finances, we should go in for the luxury of all these new Departments—the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Mines, and all these mushroom institutions. We must have the Ministry of Pensions, but, except for that, I would sweep them all away. You might there make considerable and drastic reductions.
After all, expenditure depends upon policy, and until the Government have
made up their minds as to their policy abroad, we shall not know what our commitments and our expenditure are. I would ask the Financial Secretary, when he comes to reply, to let us know whether, in the Estimates for 1922–23, the Government are budgeting for our not having any more commitments in Constantinople. Have they taken into consideration the fact that, when this arrangement goes through between the Greeks and the Turks, as it obviously will, a very substantial body of our troops will be released, and a heavy expenditure, which amounted last year, I think, to about £6,000,000, will be taken off our shoulders? Have the Government taken that into consideration, or, if not, may we hope that the Budget of next year will be £6,000,000 better than was anticipated? Then we might make a substantial reduction if we reconsider our policy in Palestine. I never could see why we should spend the money of British taxpayers for the purpose of looking after Palestine and making a home for the Jews. If the Jews want a home for themselves, I think they might pay for it themselves. There are plenty of places at home where we want the money. If the Government will turn their attention to these various matters of reduction in our fighting forces, the abolition of these Ministries—which are certainly not wanted by the people of this country—and reduction of our commitments abroad, I think we might make a very substantial reduction on the Estimates of 1921–22.

Mr. HASLAM: I hope I may receive the indulgence of the House while I make a few remarks on the important question of foreign exchanges, which I feel sure ought to be submitted to, and thoroughly examined by, the delegates to the Genoa Conference. The exchange difficulty would largely vanish if the various countries which are now issuing fiduciary paper money without let or hindrance would cease the increase of such issues in the future. In this respect Russia appears to be in a hopeless condition. In fact, money in Russia has become virtually meaningless. The case of Germany, however, is totally different. German financial experts know very well what they are doing, and it is their deliberate policy to cultivate German interest and German industries by every
possible expedient. Germany's financial affairs are managed in an extremely astute manner. One of their principal objects at the present time is to make the world believe that they are too poor to meet the costs of the reparations. The truth is, however, that Germany is growing wealthier day by day in real wealth, while we are experiencing the reverse process. By their issue of paper money, which costs them nothing but printing expenses, they are enabled to purchase good currency abroad, to buy the raw materials they require, and to produce finished articles at a much lower cost than we can.
Our difficulties are increased by our highly increased cost of production, especially in labour and freight charges. In calculating the wealth of a country we must take into consideration, not so much money values, as the amount of real produce, that is to say, of exchangeable goods, which the country possesses. If we take that criterion as a gauge, we shall find that Germany has increased her commercial commodities and means of further production continually. Germany produces much more cheaply than we do, and deliberately takes advantage of her depreciated currency, which, at each stage of depreciation, causes her labour costs to be comparatively lower and her profits on industry comparatively higher, thus encouraging their extension. By working full time and at lower rates of real wages, she has gained the advantage of cheap production, and her industries are, therefore, generally fully engaged. Germany has under 200,000 unemployed, while our unemployed number at least 2,000,000. At the same time our Poor Law statistics are growing continually worse. I believe there are only two ways of meeting this foreign competition, and decreasing the cost of living here. One is by lowering the cost of production, and this is the more important; the other is by obtaining greater fixity in foreign exchanges—a result which can never be obtained until the issue of dishonest money is stopped in foreign countries.
Dr. William A. Shaw in an article, recently published, shows clearly, by comparing the taxable capacity of Germany and of the United Kingdom, that Germany bears at the present time considerably less than half the taxation we have
to bear here. It must also be borne in mind that about 1,000,000 men are being employed in German industries who, before the War, owing to conscription, were serving in the Army and Navy. Not only do the Germans gain by the industry of those men, but they save also at least £100,000,000 a year in naval and military expenditure, while we have to bear a very heavy expenditure for these Services. It does not matter what kind of industry in Germany we take into consideration—whether it is iron or steel, cotton, woollen, electricity, coalmining or any other industry—we find that the Germans are virtually working at full pressure. In fact, some industries are so much engaged that they refuse to take further orders, and their exports to neutral countries are continually increasing. As an instance of the industry of Germany, I may quote the production of lignite, of which 92,000,000 tons were produced in 1913. In 1921 this had increased to 123,000,000 tons. In this country the coal used for domestic and industrial purposes was 189,000,000 tons in 1913, and 130,000,000 tons in 1921, the decrease being 59,000,000 tons, while Germany's production of coal and lignite was 245,000,000 tons in 1913 and 232,000,000 tons in 1921, or over 100,000,000 tons more than our coal produced and used for domestic and industrial purposes. Against the loss of the Saar and Alsace coalfields, Germany has the advantage of huge forests, and no doubt a considerable amount of heat is obtained from the consumption of wood. The main point, however, is that the units of heat generated in industry in Germany are very much greater in number than the units of heat generated in the industries of this country.
It is said that the people in Germany are suffering on account of their low wages. As evidence against this, I may quote General Booth, who was lately in Germany. He reported that he saw far less poverty and destitution in Germany than here, and that there was far more evidence of prosperity in Germany than there is in Great Britain. That evidence comes from a witness who has thorough knowledge of the condition of the poorer classes, and is therefore qualified to make a fair comparison. In making these remarks, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I have no desire to cripple
Germany, but I do desire that the position should not be obscured by German financial experts. I am convinced that German influence in Great Britain reflects itself in our Press to a considerable extent, and we are thus unwittingly misled as to the true financial position of Germany. I am particularly anxious that our representatives at Genoa shall be fully informed as to the real wealth of Germany, reckoned by the internal value of her mark, and that the comparative incidence of taxation shall be ascertained. It is absolutely essential that the currency problem to which I have referred shall be placed on a sound foundation before foreign business and credits can become more normal and before exchange rates can begin to show signs of recovering stability.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that hon. Members are rather anxious to raise another question on this Vote, and, therefore, I will cut my remarks as short as possible. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke just now, he made, I think, rather an inaccurate statement about the Debates on the Army and Navy which we have recently had. He was quite wrong in saying that no reductions were proposed and that, if I understood him rightly, no instances of extravagances were adduced. I sat through all those Debates, and my experience was that from every part of the House, and especially from these benches, a great many instances were adduced of extravagance in the Army and Navy—not in regard to fighting men, but in regard to subsidiary services—which certainly ought to be remedied. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) hag raised the question of finance because it is the most important thing we have to consider. If you ask any ordinary man in the street, if you ask any hon. Member who has ah independent mind, I am sure he would say that financially this is the most vulnerable Government the country has ever known. Having got into very deep water indeed, threatening to drown not only themselves, but everyone else, the Government appointed the Geddes Committee in the hope that it would pull them out. I have two complaints to make as to the Government's action. The first is that the Government got us into this financial
mess. The reason for that is that the Government do not know their minds from day to day. They have no settled policy. They seem to be guided by opportunist considerations from hour to hour. We have seen a complete reversal of agricultural policy; we have seen a complete scrapping of the housing programme; we have seen—I do not say whether it is right or wrong—a complete postponement of a large part of the educational programme; we have seen a transport Minister erect an enormous transport edifice and spend millions of money and then himself subscribe, within two years, to the extinction of the very Department he set up. We have seen also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who flits from figure to figure and from Estimate to Estimate, always changed, quite unable to control his own Department, and he has to call in an outside Committee to do it for him.
I believe that the country, and I am sure this House, if it honestly asked itself the question, is getting very tired of this amateur finance and amateur statesmanship. The sooner we get back to the old system before the War the better it will be. My second complaint is that the Government are not only not carrying out a large part of the Geddes Committee's recommendations, which I think they ought to carry out, but we are experiencing a terrible amount of delay in carrying out the recommendations upon which everyone is agreed. The essence of the Geddes Committee's recommendations was that the proposals ought to be carried out without delay. I have here many quotations. There are three volumes of the Geddes Committee Report. In them the Committee never tire of pressing upon the Government the enormous importance of going ahead with these proposals and carrying out the reductions at once, so as to get the results properly shown in the coming financial year. It was a pure waste of breath, or rather a waste of energy, because, so far as I can see, nothing is being done even in regard to the recommendations upon which everyone is agreed. Let me give an instance of what I mean. There is the memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War the other day. In nearly every paragraph he tells us, not what he has done so that we may see the results in the coming financial year, but what he
intends to do. You will find in the memorandum such phrases as these: The London district will be merged in the Eastern Command," "The establishment of the Army Education Corps will be reduced," "The fees at Woolwich and Sandhurst will be raised," "The Gentral Gas School will be closed, and the amalgamation of certain other schools is being considered," "A reduction of about 17 per cent. of the wages bill is in contemplation," "The establishment of horses will be reduced," "The peace establishment of vehicles will be reduced," "The Army establishments will be examined," "Arrangements are under discussion with the Minister of Pensions in regard to administrative reform," "The privilege of travelling by rail will be withdrawn, "and so on and so on; but not one of these things is now being done so as to show the results in the coming financial year.
To my mind the state of War Office finance is very serious indeed. After all, this is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We find that the cost per head in the Army now is more than double what it was before the War. You find a worse state of things in the Navy. In the Navy the cost per head is three times what it was before the War. I feel very strongly that until you get some kind of co-ordination between the three Services you will never get proper economy established. At present there is an entire want of co-ordination between the Army, Navy and Air Service, and the Geddes Committee point that out over and over again. There is continued overlapping, continued duplication, continued superfluity of effort and energy. Let me give one instance. Each one of these Services, the Army, Navy and Air Force, has a medical service of its own. Each has also a dental service of its own. In the Army, although there are 20,000 fewer men than there were before the War, they have 441 more Royal Army Medical Corps people and dentists. Take the Navy, with its own medical and dental service. In the Navy the cost per head for medical and dental service is £12. That is for every single person in the Navy. Naturally, when these figures were disclosed the Geddes Committee recommended a serious cut in the expenditure. The Committee's case is absolutely unanswerable. It is out-
rageous that you should spend £12 per head per year in the Navy for medical and dental services. Under the National Health Insurance Act the medical costs for far worse lives than the lives you get in the Navy are only 11s. 6d. per head; that is to say the Navy at the moment is costing more than 19 times as much in medical and denal services as it is costing the nation for the ordinary civilian population insured under the Health Insurance Act. I hope that that fact is to be investigated.
Take the separate Service of the Air. You have there a separate dental and medical service. I am pointing these things out because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is continually saying, "Why do you not give some specific instances and show the way in which expenditure can be reduced?" It is perfectly easy to show the way. If you co-ordinated these medical services you would save hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. Although there are 10,000 fewer persons in the Air Service than there were last year, you have a very large increase in the cost of medical practitioners, and a very large increased cost in regard to nursing service. That is only one point showing that where these three Services are concerned co-ordination would effect enormous saving. If the proposal of the Geddes Committee to set up a Ministry of Defence, co-ordinating all three Services, were carried out, it would result in the saving of millions sterling every year. We find to-day that the staffs of the Admiralty and the War Office are more than double what they were in the year of the outbreak of war, although the fighting forces are reduced by no less than 50,000.
Unless the Government act at once we shall not get taxation substantially reduced in this country, and taxation must be reduced. It is crippling trade, and—I do not know whether I shall carry my hon. Friends of the Labour party with me in this—I am quite sure, in my own mind, that this heavy and grievous taxation is one of the principle causes of unemployment. On 5th December, at a meeting, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that a reduction of £175,000,000 was necessary to enable revenue to meet expenditure. As everybody knows, the Geddes Committee proposed a cut of £86,750,000 over and above the voluntary savings by the Departments. As the hon.
Member for Oxford has pointed out, the Government are only adopting £54,000,000 of that £86,750,000. Where is the reduction of taxation to come from unless the Government go much further than they have done, especially in view of the enormous Supplementary Estimates presented to us year after year?
The Supplementary Estimates represent a most sinister feature of present day finance. Supplementary Estimates are very largely responsible for our inflated expenditure to-day. As the hon. Member for Oxford pointed out, the total Supply services in the last Budget amounted to just over £600,000,000 when the Budget was presented. They have since increased to about £794,000,000. I have here all the Supplementary Estimates presented to the House since the last Budget. I got them out of the Vote Office, and I added them up as carefully as I could, and I find they amount to no less than £142,000,000 sterling. In view of these Supplementary Estimates, the Budget, as presented to us, is no criterion of the expenditure we are asked to meet. The Government under-budgetted by £140,000,000 last April, and while I hope the figures will not be so inflated, yet the same kind of thing is certain to happen in the coming financial year. It always will happen as long as the administration of the day spends money without coining to the House to get the consent of the House. The only way to cure this is by laying down a hard-and-fast rule that no money shall be spent in any Department until that Department has received the consent of the House to that expenditure.
An immediate reduction of expenditure is absolutely vital. We have several instances of how it could be effected. The Geddes Committee recommended the abolition of the Overseas Department. They recommended the abolition of the Transport Department and of the Mines Department. No one of these Departments has been abolished. I have not the slightest doubt but that the Ministers of these Departments went to the Government and the Treasury, and pointed out that to abolish them would cost far more money than to keep them in being. Now they are all in being, and out of £100,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself asked the Geddes Committee to indicate as a saving, only about half has been adopted. If we ex-
clude the savings consequent on the Washington Conference, even less than one half of the amount recommended by the Geddes Committee has been adopted.
May I draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to these figures? To-day we have got, in round figures, over 350,000 Government officials, or 74,000 more than we had in 1914. It is owing to the pull of the Government Departments against the Treasury that reduction in taxation is being seriously jeopardised to-day. In every Department of State, except the Post Office, there is a larger staff than in 1914. What I complain of is that during the last 12 months these Government Departments have done practically nothing to reduce their staffs. I have looked into the matter very carefully, and I find that since 1st April, 1921, there has only been a reduction of 4 per cent. in the staffs of the various Departments. It is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to listen to any Departmental excuses whatever if they do not hold water. I go further any say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot get his own way with the Government Departments, he has a remedy at hand. He can resign and hand the reins over to somebody else who is able to effect greater reductions in our national expenditure.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member who has just spoken speaks with knowledge on the subject. He has brought to the attention of the House several cases which, on close investigation, reveal very clearly that the dominating policy of His' Majesty's Government is certainly not economy in the public service. This Debate has roamed over various subjects. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) advocated a capital levy as one method of solving our present trouble. I understand that hon. Members who advocate that policy always allow that the capital levy itself should be paid over a course of years. If that be so, it is 'really a deferred Income Tax, based, not on a man's income, but on his capital. When we consider, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) well pointed out, that every individual in the country to-day, who is
paying 6s. in the £ Income Tax, is working four months every year for the Government or one week in every three, I think it is clear that there is a capital levy in active force and being levied to-day, which every citizen in the country acutely feels. Finance, in my judgment, is the main subject and a most difficult problem which this country must face. Finance dogs our footsteps whether we turn to the international situation abroad or to a consideration of questions at home.
I believe the true remedy, as far as our home policy is concerned, is contained in the old Scottish doctrine of living within one's annual income. Apply that test to the Government policy of this year. I find that the annual revenue is exceeded by the annual expenditure. Taking the figures up to the 18th March, the sum raised by taxation this year amounts to £895,000,000, while the expenditure for the same period amounts to £985,000,000. In other words, up to 18th March this year, His Majesty's Government are not living within their yearly income. It is true that the total revenue exceeds the total expenditure, but, as hon. Members well know, the total revenue is swollen this year to the extent of £145,000,000 from the sale of War stores. The sale of War stores to implement your revenue is unjustifiable, and until that system is stopped, and until the Government of the day live within their yearly income, there will be an indirect process of inflation, the fall in prices will be checked, and unemployment will continue.
That leads me to the main point put by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) earlier in the evening, when he directed attention to the Estimates for the coming year. He pointed out that the Estimates for the coming year amounted to £520,000,000, and if we allow Consolidated Fund charges to amount to £340,000,000 there is a total of £861,000,000. To that must be added the charge for the interest on the debt to the United States of America and the Supplementary Estimates, which, as the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G, Locker-Lampson) reminded the House, always amount to a large figure. If I allow £50,000,000 as the Supplementary Estimates for the coming year, the total expenditure during the coming year cannot be less than £930,000,000. If that is
the total estimated expenditure for the coming year, what about the revenue? The revenue up to the 18th March amounts to £895,000,000, and allowing two weeks before the financial year closes or, say, £27,500,000 a week the total revenue from taxation for the present year will amount to £950,000,000. It is difficult to give with any complete accuracy a figure for the coming year, but bringing into consideration the continued bad trade which exists, and the point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, that the Income Tax during the coming year will be levied on one or two years of bad trade, the revenue for the coming year cannot exceed £900,000,000. To that one must add the sale of War stores, which, in what is known as the Geddes Report, is put at £35,000,000, and if I allow a larger sum, say, £40,000,000, the total revenue, taking the most sanguine view, cannot exceed £940,000,000. That is to say, £940,000,000 of revenue on the one hand and a certain £930,000,000 of expenditure on the other hand. If these figures be at all accurate—and I think they are under-estimated in some respects—the charge we make against His Majesty's Government is this, that they are not living within their yearly income, that they are not conforming to the principle of every individual in the country, and so they are placing an undue burden upon the taxpayers of this country.
9.0 P.M.
During the Debate yesterday questions were asked as to the Government policy at Genoa, and I would like to have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer certain questions about the Government policy at Genoa on the financial side, but in view of his absence I will postpone doing so. The figures which I have submitted clearly reveal that the interests of the taxpayer have not yet received that consideration which they deserve from His Majesty's Government. During the course of the Debate certain figures have been quoted of what is called the normal year, and examination of the figures for the normal year in the Paper presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago reveal this fact, that the present Estimates exceed the figures of the normal year on armaments, while the cost of social services in the coming year shows a decrease. That is a clear reflection of the policy of His Majesty's
Government—curtailment of the money for social services at home and, on the other hand, increased expenditure on the Army and Navy and a policy of military adventure abroad. We must reduce the amount being spent on armaments. It is excessive, it is unnecessary. The figures for the normal year were £135,000,000, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply to my right hon. Friend, taunted him with not pointing out where economies could be effected, we point out quite clearly that the cost of armaments is excessive and must be reduced.
There are several other points I would like to have touched upon, but at this late hour I will not detain the House. This I will say, however, that the three years' financial record of His Majesty's Government reveals one very interesting point. Not only have they levied taxation at a higher rate than any other nation in the world, but they have collected £670,000,000 from the sale of War stores, which money they have spent, and, in addition to that, they have increased the National Debt during the past three years by £100,000,000. That is their record, and a comparison of our position to-day with that of three years ago is this, that the capital asset of the nation is £770,000,000 less than it was three years ago. I think the mere statement of that figure is a complete justification for the very short Parliamentary time which several hon. Members have occupied this evening on this subject.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: In the view of certain Members of this House who have been advising the Government as to the best method of getting out of the financial difficulties into which they have plunged the country, we on these benches are not looked upon as in any way interested in finance, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are the most interested party not only in this House but in the country. It is the labour of the working classes which has to provide the wealth not only in this country but all the countries in the world. That fact has been admitted unconsciously in various ways by certain speakers and in the Press, it being urged that one of the most powerful ways of bringing this country back to financial stability is to reduce the cost of production". I am not going to touch upon any of those points. I want to bring the
House back to this point—that there is an easy way out of the financial difficulty. I see that the Financial Secretary smiles. I expect he knows what I am going to say. There is an easy way out of the difficulty if the Government has the courage and honesty to put it into operation. I have been bombarding the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some time with questions regarding the reduction of War Loan interest. I noticed in the Consolidated Fund Bill that the House is invited to pass this Bill allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow money at a rate of interest not exceeding 5 per cent.
I should have imagined, in view of the precedents I have quoted from time to time, the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the example of other Chancellors of the Exchequer who have preceded him—men whose names appear in the history books of Britain, as well as in the Parliamentary record, as being among the greatest statesmen that this country has possessed, men like Pelham and Goschen. Pelham, indeed, put his scheme into operation following what, at that time, was considered a great war. He passed an Act to reduce the rate of interest, giving individuals the opportunity of transferring their stock into a security with a low rate of interest, first to 3½ per cent. and then to 3 per cent., or of being bought out in full by the Government. The following year, 1750, he passed a second Act, because the Bank of England and the East India Company refused to come up to the scratch, as they thought there was something invalidating their claims in the Act previously passed extending the period during which they could make this conversion, and, with the exception of £3,000,000, the Bank of England, the East India Company and all the other individuals and companies which had stood aloof under the operation of the previous Act, came in, and, with the exception of this £3,000,000, the whole of the loan was converted from the higher interest to the lower rate, 3½per cent. and subsequently 3 per cent.
I want to submit to this House that it can carry out the very same procedure now. There is nothing dishonest in it. It is an act of conversion, and, in another way, it is an act of justice. The working men have been told up and down the country that the cost of their living has
gone down, and, therefore, they must submit to reduced wages. The cost of money has gone down, the bank rate having fallen from 7 per cent. to 4½ per cent., and the interest on bank deposits from 4 per cent. to 2½ per cent. Money has become cheaper to borrow, and yet the Government propose in this Consolidated Fund Bill to borrow, at a rate of 5 per cent. interest. In France, as I showed to the House in a question, the Minister of Finance has taken time by the forelock, and has reduced, as from the 10th of this month, the rate of interest upon Treasury Bills and National Defence Bonds. That, of course, has to do with all subsequent bills and subsequent bonds that are issued, but no further borrowings are to take place in these two categories at the high rate of interest existing before the 10th March, but they are to be at the lower rate of interest of 31 per cent. If France can borrow money so cheaply to carry on certain of her financial obligations, surely this country, which is outstanding as a nation of financial stability, as a nation that is always able to pay its way and not be behindhand, ought not really to find any difficulty in borrowing money at this low rate of interest.
I know that hon. Members, when I have suggested this matter before, have jeered at it. The time will come when you must have it. You are bound to accept it, and, though hon. Members may titter and laugh, if you wish to conduct the affairs of this country, if you wish to carry through the welfare of this nation, if you wish to attend to the things that have been promised to the people of this country, you must reduce the rate of interest, and reduce it in the manner I have suggested. No amount of equivocation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no amount of side-tracking by trying to make out that these are dishonest proposals, is going to have its effect. In all parts of the country, in all industrial centres, in all mining districts, where working people have had to submit to reductions of wages that have brought them back to the conditions in 1914, they are asking why it is that the only pledge which this Government keeps is to the interest-drawers who advanced their money during the War. I say that by reducing the rate of interest from 5 per cent., the amount mentioned in the Con-
solidated Fund Bill, to 4 per cent., you would save a matter of between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000.
I submit that that is a sum worth saving. It is a sum greater than the reduction proposed by the Government in reply to the Geddes cut. It is a, sum almost approximating that suggested as a saving by the Geddes Committee, and if you go further, and adopt the French Government's proposal, reducing it to 3½ per cent., you will save a very much larger sum and be able to make your accounts balance in the manner suggested. I might have replied to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, who seems to misunderstand the attitude the Members of the Labour party take up in their advocacy of a capital levy. It is plain he has yet to understand the real advocacy we put forward. He talks of the way we propose to make a capital levy as being equal to another Income Tax, and suggests that individuals who pay Income Tax at 6s. in the £ are already heavily taxed. The working classes of this country, whose food is taxed, whose beer is taxed, and whose tobacco is taxed, are taxed to the amount of 7s. 3d. per £ of the working man's wage. That surely is a sufficiently large Income Tax for the working man to pay. That is my argument, and my answer to the argument of my hon. Friend that 6s. in the £ is a sufficiently heavy Income Tax for those able to pay Income Tax. They at least have 12s. left to spend upon anything they like, while the workman has to spend his other 12s. 9d. in food and clothing for himself and his family. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might at least convey the suggestion I have made once again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and point out to him that so far from his answers to the questions I have put to him being satisfactory I am still carrying on the same agitation, backed up by a vast support all over the country, by people who have to stand all the hardships and practically use what wealth they have in paying interest upon the War Loan.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has apparently made a careful calculation of the amount that would be saved to the country if we repudiated our obligations in relation to the National Debt.
Why should he trouble to over-elaborate his calculations? If we were to commence a policy of repudiation—

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I do not think I mentioned repudiation. I pointed out Acts of conversion, and I quoted several Acts of conversion that had been passed by Pelham and others.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not think that is a point of Order. I may, however, say that on thinking over the arguments of the hon. Gentleman that it is clear they would involve legislation and therefore no more than a reference can be allowed in reply.

Mr. YOUNG: It may, perhaps, take a moment's reflection on my part to secure that that single reference permitted to me shall express in a concentrated form all that I desire to say. Let that reference be that, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I absolutely repudiate following the doctrine suggested. If the moment comes, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when we do in this House take part in a measure, which must and shall be described as repudiation, I sincerely trust that a policy so dishonest and so crude will be in the hands of the hon. Member and his party, and of no other party.
Various fascinating topics have been touched upon, but if I followed into the wide field of protracted argument, which is so tempting, I fear I should occupy more time than I desire to occupy. I must confine my reply to answering what seems particularly called for, and for the imparting of that information which hon. Members are entitled to receive. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) invites from the Government a declaration of policy as to whether they are in favour of inflation or deflation' Upon the horns of that dilemma I must resolutely decline to be impaled. When one is offered the alternative of the frying pan or the fire, he may conceivably prefer the third comfortable alternative of the hearth. Why is it necessary to rush to either extremes? In his own observations the hon. and gallant Member has shown the absurdities that lie in the extremes of inflation and deflation. Is not the great evil of the present state of com-
merce and international trade the fluctuations, the movements, the instability? Is not what we require the smoothing out of the fluctuations in exchange, and so in the matter of inflation and deflation. Is not what we require to try to manage to survey the whole sea and to steer cave-fully between inflation on the one hand and deflation on the other?
What I gathered from the remarks of one of the authoritative leaders of the Labour party was the astonishing pronouncement that he was in favour—I suppose on behalf of his party—of a policy of deflation. I really feel inclined to commend the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks to the members of his party who take an interest in the question of unemployment. They should be most careful, as certain analogies, commercial and industrial, make it clear that deflation reduces prices and by that process causes unemployment. Further, on that subject I would commend to the hon. and gallant Member the extremely interesting memorandum, which has already created much interest in financial circles, of Professor Cassel which suggests that the single cause of the whole unemployment wave from which we are suffering at the present time is the arbitrary deflation by the great nations. That is his argument. I believe the argument goes too far, but that this process of deflation can have a most adverse effect upon trade and may be the direct cause of unemployment is not surely to be objected to by any student of the subject? Whether trade be booming or the reverse, you must take steps to check the movements and the vibrations and to produce stability in the centre.
Let me, however, hasten past a subject so complex and so fascinating, and deal with the last criticism which has been advanced, in particular by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), whose criticisms of financial matters are always worth the closest attention. He criticises the Government for their delay in putting into force the Geddes recommendations. I doubt if, in this case, his criticisms are as well-conceived as we are usually accustomed to. There is produced for the consideration of the House a pronouncement made by a Minister who in a few days after the decision of the Cabinet, and within a few
weeks of the issue of the Geddes Report, says that certain things will be done. The report covers the widest questions of policy, the expenditure of nearly £200,000,000, and indirect questions of administration. Is it a view of common sense, or consistent with past experience, to suppose that the measures to be taken in consequence of that Report have to be done with a crack of the whip or a stroke of the pen? In a field so wide and in measures of such complexity, I venture to say that had there been the sort of precipitate haste which seems to be desired by the hon. Member, we should have plunged many parts, and important parts, of the administration of the country into a measure of confusion which would have cost very much more in the long run than the amount saved by a few weeks.
Let the House remember another thing. Generally speaking, our financial commitments under our financial system are made for a whole year, and the very large bulk of the whole of the financial commitments of the country can only be reduced or increased at the end of the year. That accounts for a good many of the references to future action of which the hon. Member spoke. The changes can only be made with fresh Parliamentary authority at the end of the financial year, and many and so deep and wide are the changes introduced by the Geddes Report that a large number can only be made by fresh statutory authority. Any time that passes before some of these changes are made is not out of that wanton passivity which the hon. Member implied, but out of the necessary subservience to the authority of Parliament. In fact, in every possible manner in which such economies could be secured they have been secured. The House has already been informed that in this current year of 1921–22 the actual cuts made in consequence of the Treasury Circular that went out in the autumn and the Geddes Report thereon will amount, I think I am right in saying, to about £50,000,000. Is there "any evidence of delay in that? Next year, as explained to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the actual reduction will amount to £64,000,000. less the £10,000,000 which it is impossible to realise owing to the time that must pass before, for instance, we get the authority from this House to make the necessary changes, and so on.
Then the old question of Supplementary Estimates arises in the hon. Member's criticism. Let us most heartily agree that Supplementary Estimates are the weak point of financial organisation. It must be, and is, the constant task and duty of the Treasury to fight against and resist Suplementary Estimates. It is, as the House has well recognised, the duty of the House to exercise the same function, but it will not serve any useful purpose to try and ignore facts in this respect. The Empire is a wide one; it covers distant fields, and unexpected contingencies will and must arise. Our annual Budget is a vast one, between £800,000,000 and £900,000,000, andaspractical men it is impossible to be sure that every conceivable penny of expenditure is going to be foreseen at the beginning of the year. No supplementaries is what we must strive for, but we must strive for that as an ideal. Let me remind the House that a too-absolute rule against dealing with an unexpected, unforeseen, and urgent contingency by way of Supplementary Estimates would only tend to weaken the fortifications of the year's finance, because if you try to apply the rule too hard-and-fast there comes a time when you will force Departments to make too wide a provision. Here, again, true wisdom lies in striving for an ideal while recognising that there must be exceptions to it.
A note that wakened a very sympathetic chord in my attention was struck by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley) when he appealed to His Majesty's Government to give more time for the consideration of the Estimates in Committee of Supply, That appeal should of course, I fear, in the first place, bead dressed to another quarter, but all those interested in the maintenance of financial control must join together in unison in desiring that the time given by the House to the discussion of its Estimates shall be not only adequate but ample, and shall be employed to the best possible advantage. Even in my short experience of the House I have watched the passage of Supply days enough to sympathise with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, when he deplored the number of Supply days passed in discussing matters wholly irrelevant to financial control. I am confident there could he no stronger stroke struck for the restoration of that more
powerful control of finance we all desire to see than the more careful adjustment of Supply days to discussions that are really financial, although, let me remind the House, that the hands of the Government are by no means free. The question selected for discussion in the course of Supply, according to the tradition and custom of the House, depend to a very large extent on the choice exercised by the Opposition.
There was but one other particular matter to which I would refer, namely, the criticism, advanced by the hon. Member for Wood Green upon the fluctuations in the total Government staff, a criticism which, owing to the brief time available, was mentioned in a manner so general as I think to have given a very misleading impression such as I am sure the hon. Member did not desire to convey. Briefly, the state of affairs is that if any Members interested will analyse the movements of the total of the officials employed in the Civil Service they will find the state of affairs to be as follows. There has been a substantial, and I would maintain a satisfactory, reduction all round in Government staffs as a whole, a reduction so substantial, as Members of the House are well aware, as to cause bitter searchings of heart in many quarters of the Government service. The total effect of that reduction has been masked by the fact that it has been necessary during the course of the year to take on a further increase of staff to deal with unemployment benefit. It was increased and also cut down afterwards, but the House will discover that no fair judgment can be passed on the very strenuous effort that has been made for the reduction of staffs unless it is realised that to a large extent the good effect of these efforts for reductions has been masked by the necessity of increased staffs in order to deal with the very great and urgent evils of unemployment.
These are all the various questions which I think it falls to me to say a single word upon in reply to the Debate, but let me, in conclusion, comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) who, dealing with the Budget, pointed to a very gloomy future. How that will be will appear when the Budget is unfolded to the House. I will not attempt to deal with it at the present
time, but with regard to that question with which we are particularly concerned at the present time, namely, the question of expenditure, it should surely not be allowed to go forth in the country as a whole or on the Continent of Europe that the effort that has been made towards the reduction of our national expenditure has been a feeble or halfhearted one. I am confident that both those who watch these proceedings from abroad at a distance and those who watch what we have done towards the reduction from a distance of time in the future will say it was one of the biggest efforts and the achievement of one of the greatest and most difficult tasks that was performed even by those post-War Governments in Europe which have been confronted with many tasks so great as this. I hope this will not lead hon. Members to believe that it will be possible in the future, by any means consistent with national welfare or national safety, to repeat a out of the same size as that which has obtained this year.

WOMEN POLICE.

Viscountess ASTOR: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the dismissal of the Metropolitan women police patrols. The Geddes Committee was set in") in order to save the country £100,000,000, and when they came to women police they saw a paltry sum of £27,000 and they said, "Scrap the lot." It seemed to them to be such a small amount that it did not seem worth while. I should like to know on whose advice the Geddes Committee acted. Who did they consult? Did they only see the Home Secretary? Here is what the Geddes Committee say:
We have considered the question of the employment of women patrols. Their powers are very limited and their utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible.
I think this is a very important point, and I hope the Home Secretary will tell us what the evidence was which was submitted to the Geddes Committee. The Geddes Committee is not the only body which has considered this question of the employment of women police, because not long ago a Committee was set up by the Home Office to inquire whether they were necessary, and they examined the question from every point of view, not only from the point of view of pounds,
shillings and pence, but whether they were really needed for the prevention of crime. This Committee sat under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office. They were not like the Geddes Committee, which had to deal with the Army and Navy and other things, and therefore they were more competent to give advice on this particular question. They asked by circular all the Chief Constables of England, Wales, and Scotland, to lay before the Committee a statement of their views. Of 57 Chief Constables who had employed women police, only six expressed any definite views against them. Several who were at first against them were completely won over, after seeing their work, and were enthusiastic.
Then there was the evidence given by Police Constable Collins on behalf of the Joint Central Committee of Police Federation of England and Wales. The Chairman asked:
You favour the creation of a woman police force?—Yes.
It must be a regular force sworn in and having power ofarrest?—Yes.
This Committee reported unanimously that there was not only scope but urgent need for women police. What right has the Home Secretary to reject the unanimous Report of his own Committee and adopt the Report of the Geddes Committee? As far as I can make out the Geddes Committee only sought advice from the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of Police. I do not think this House ought lightly to reject the unanimous opinion of the only Committee which inquired fully into this question and really took evidence. The Committee appointed by the Home Office, to which I have referred, said that the women patrols should form part of the police force and should have power of arrest. Why did not the Home Secretary act upon that recommendation? In spite of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, the women patrols in London never had power of arrest, and they would have been much more useful if they had had that power.
The Home Secretary only seems to accept advice when it agrees with his own prejudices. He refused the power of arrest to the police women and then tells the Geddes Committee that their usefulness is negligible. Their usefulness would have been far greater if the Home Secre-
tary had only listened to the advice of those who enquired into this question. Sir Nevil Macready, the head of the London Police, said that, not only would he have women police, but he would give them full powers of arrest the same as constables, and he wanted to put the whole question of solicitation in their hands, because he felt they could do it better than the men. I think Sir Nevil Macready has had far greater experience than the Home Secretary when it comes to dealing with this question of the women police. Another very important witness who came before the Committee was Sir Leonard Dunning, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales. He has just issued a report, and I beg the House to listen attentively and say what they think of it. He says:
I still believe that a woman, by advico and personal influence, can do more than a man to protect a girl from the temptations of her own nature and those held out to her by the other sex, and there is a definite place for women in the Police Force of any place where those temptations are many.
Does the Home Secretary deny there are many temptations in this great city? We have had two tribunals. On the one side the Geddes Committee, who took no evidence and had no time really to study the matter. On the other side was the Home Secretary's Committee, which went thoroughly into the question. Which are we to take—the Home Secretary against women police, or Sir Nevil Macready, Sir L. Dunning, most of the Chief Constables, a witness from the Police Federation, the Home Office Committee, and the whole of the women's organised societies in favour of the women acting in this capacity? We are told sometimes that the women do not do police work but rescue work and welfare work. I should like to tell hon. Members in official language what the duties of the police are. They are to preserve order and to prevent crime and offences against the law. When a policeman preserves order and prevents immorality, we are told he is doing his duty as a policeman, but when a policewoman does that kind of work we are told she is simply doing rescue work. That cannot be denied. I know where the suggestion comes from.
I wish the House could read the evidence given by Sir Leonard Dunning about the preventive work done by the police among boys in
Liverpool. It is only when the work deals with girls that it is called rescue work; when it affects boys it is called preventive work. We have been told by the Home Secretary that this should be voluntary work done by kind ladies. Yet it is these same ladies who are leading the appeal for keeping policewomen. Women who have given their lives to this sort of work declare that the introduction of police women for police work has absolutely revolutionised rescue work. That is the opinion of people who know more about this kind of work than any single Member of this House.
Women's police work keeps the girls from going to prison. It prevents crime, it stops people from becoming habitual criminals. Anybody who has dealt with these cases knows perfectly well that once a girl is arrested and put in prison she is very apt to continue on the downward path. It is more difficult for a woman than it is for a man to recover when once she has fallen. She is too apt to fall still lower. That is the tragedy about these girls. Men can pull up after the first fall. It is very difficult for women to do so and it is only uniformed women with the authority of the police force behind them who can really deal effectually with this kind of girl.
I do not know whether hon. Members realise how this work is done. The policewomen in the first place caution young girls. I am not dealing with the old and hardened prostitute; those poor unfortunate people are beyond dealing with. I am talking about young girls. The policewomen first warn them; the second time they take their address and the third time they threaten them with arrest. It often occurs that the police patrol after taking a girl's address visits her parents and tries to use influence for good in that way. It is a kind of work which nobody but women can do. These women patrols are working in Hyde Park, at Hampstead Heath and at Dept-ford and at Woolwich. Some of these places are not safe for any but uniformed women, and they are not really effective unless they have authority behind them. If hon. Members of this House would take the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee, they will feel as much horror as I do at the very idea of the Home Secretary going back on his
own Committee in order to save a paltry sum of not many thousands of pounds a year.
When we ask him about it, he declares that a great deal of this work will still be done by women. Our Committee said that women needed to be specially qualified and highly trained for the work, yet the Home Secretary says a great deal of it will still be done by policemen's wives. No doubt policemen have delightful and charming wives, highly cultivated and qualified, but I do not believe they marry them because they will be able to deal with girls and women in a skilled way. To be a good searcher, I should think, was never a quality that a man wants in his wife. Yet this is the sort of work the policeman's wife will have to do. As a matter of fact, I think policemen select their wives on the same line as lawyers and politicians; they select them because they like them, they do not select them because they may be of use to them in police work any more than a lawyer selects his wife in order she, may prepare a brief for him. As to the question of cost, the Home Secretary put it at £27,000 a year. That is not really quite accurate, but I believe the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) is going to deal with that point later on. I should like to tell the House something of what these women patrols have done. The total number of people assisted by women patrols was nearly 50,000 last year, and that includes getting 6,454 shelters and beds for girls found wandering in the street; 70,140 persons were warned—mostly young girls. What would it have cost the country if these girls had been arrested? One thousand one hundred and thirty-one girls were taken to hospitals and homes, either infected or in danger of infection; 4,956 young girls went voluntarily to the policewomen in the London streets for help; 500 girls every week go voluntarily to these police patrols for help.
These are Scotland Yard figures, not mine. What is to become of these 500 girls? The policemen's wives will not see them, but the policemen are very likely to see them later on when they have fallen further, further and further. You will not be able to get policemen's wives to patrol Hyde Park, Hampstead Heath and other place where women are
doing this work most effectively. Do not let us go in for false economy. The policemen themselves, when they came before our Committee were as keen as the women in favour of having women to do this work. They do not like doing it; they admitted there was certain work which they could not and should not do. Sir Leonard Dunning has declared that many of these women have been saved from the prisons, the police courts and the lock hospitals and infirmaries. These girls are not born criminals: very often they have fallen thoughtlessly to the temptations which in large towns are enormous.
It is the duty of the Home Secretary, and I think the House of Commons will see it is their duty, to ensure that anything we can do to clean up and clear up and help the morals of the streets of our great towns and the morals of the girls and young men shall be done. I think the House of Commons will agree with me it is a question for the House of Commons, and not for the Home Secretary alone. What are we to have—women police and less immorality, or no women police and more girls in the infirmaries and hospitals, to say nothing of the danger to the country? I must speak frankly about this, because we hear a great deal to-day about diseases. These women will come voluntarily to the women police and ask their help. Everyone knows that if you can get them in time you can save them, but if you cannot they become a charge upon and a menace to the community. Both women and men, as citizens and ratepayers, have a right to demand the services of women in the police force. I do not want to make this a sex question, because it is almost a national question. It is the Home Secretary who is making it a sex question; it is not me, and it is not the women.
I would like to ask the Home Secretary if he really thinks that certain investigations ought to be carried on by men. In cases of assaults on young children only women police ought to be allowed to deal with them. When it comes to cases of this kind, there is not a man in this House who would want anyone but a woman to deal with their own children. There is not a man, when it comes to a case of criminal assault on young children, who would want anyone except women police to deal with them. There are
many police stations throughout the country where there are no women at all, and if the hon. Members of the House would only look at our report they would see what a vital question this is. It is a question not only of efficiency but of decency. In Glasgow the criminal assaults against children have gone up enormously, and what are the Vigilance Society of Glasgow saying? They suggest the only way to deal with these cases is to have women police. I ask the Home Secretary not to abolish women police without giving this House a chance of speaking about them. It is all very well for the Home Secretary. We know he docs not want to come back to this House, but there are a good many hon. Members who do want to come back, and he is making it very hard for his colleagues. I appeal to him in that way, if I can make no higher appeal. We say to him, "If you really think there must be economy, abolish some of them, but do not abolish all of them." The reason is this. The whole of the provinces look to London to see what it is doing. If the whole women patrol is abolished in London it will have a bad effect throughout the provinces, where women police in some cases have full powers of arrest and are doing good work. We do not want to go back on a question of principle. I do not want to threaten, because I know perfectly well threats do not do anything, but I want to caution the Government. I am speaking for the hon. Members of this House -who are not speaking for themselves, and I think they are mostly with me. Give them the chance to vote upon this question and see what comes of it.
10.0 P.M.
One of the reasons why we are so interested in this question, is because it is not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. It is a moral question. If we go back on this we are going back morally. We cannot get round that. You talk about the nation's greatness being founded upon its moral and spiritual outlook. Abolish women police, and you make it far more difficult for thousands of young people in London to lead a higher moral life. That is a very important thing. The Home Secretary says he has to economise, but what has he just done? He has increased the mounted police to 400 in London. I do not say a word against mounted police. We know perfectly well
what are they for. They are supposed to deal with riots and Bolshevism. I am not complaining about it, but we think that the lives of children and young girls are just as important as the houses in Park Lane or the plate glass in Regent Street. If the Home Secretary were to abolish 25 of the mounted police, he could keep the total force of the women patrols in London, and I appeal to him to do that. Keep them and give them full powers of arrest. There used to be a sort of chivalry, which is much needed in these days, when men said that they had to protect their women. We women know what that sort of chivalry costs thousands of other less fortunate women. There is a new sort of chivalry in our land to-day. It is the chivalry which makes men and women speak plainly about things they did not speak about before, and it is that which makes me come to the House of Commons and speak out about this issue of women police, not only from the moral point of view, but from the health point of view. The Home Secretary knows just as well as I do that getting rid of the women police is increasing the danger of one of the most terrible diseases the world knows. The new chivalry does not so much make us want to protect the women, as to make us go and see where there is a wrong, and to put it right if it lies in our province. I appeal to the Home Secretary to think of it from that point of view, He knows as well as I do that men cannot Jo that, and women can, and I beg of him to give them a chance.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I only knew at a comparatively late hour that this question was likely to be raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Though I seldom speak in this House, I could not resist the opportunity of saying a word this evening on behalf of the retention of women police. The hon. Member who has just spoken has dealt with the moral side of the question, and I am the last to belittle it, or to belittle the social utility of the work the women police have done, but may I just offer one or two other considerations to the House on the very score of economy, which is the ground on which it is proposed to abolish the women police. When I read the Geddes Report, I saw it was proposed to abolish them on the score of
economy, they having limited powers, and therefore their utility being negligible. But might I ask the House, as they have listened to some very impressive remarks on their utility, just to ask what saving will be made when we come to the facts? I noticed in an answer by the Home Secretary the other day that the cost of women police, 100 in number, was estimated at about £27,000. I say for one that if you can properly save £27,000 at this moment, if you are really going to save it, and that without losing work which in its way is of vital importance, you certainly ought to save it. Of the importance of the work the hon. Member has spoken, but are you really going to save the £27,000? Might I put that aspect of it before the House. If I were to judge from the right hon. Gentleman's answer I should imagine that if these women are done away with by a stroke of the pen any hon. Member would be grossly deceived if he really came to the conclusion that the Estimates for the next year are going to be £27,000 less. In the first place there are a number of standing charges included in that total which are not connected with the continuance or the abolition of women police which come to between £8,000 and £9,000, and by which the Estimates for next year will not be affected. Therefore, so far as the next year is affected, the total with which we have to deal already is brought down to something like £18,000. Then there comes the question of pensions. I rather gather the Home Secretary said they were not pensionable because as yet they had not been assimilated to the regular Metropolitan Male Police Force. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Quite right.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am glad I have not mis-stated the right hon. Gentleman, because when I came to look at the evidence given at Westminster by the present Chief Commissioner of Police, his support of his own case was that the women police were an integral part of the Metropolitan Police Force, and we now have the Home Secretary saying they are not assimilated.

Mr. SHORTT: No: I said they were not pensionable.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I tried to put it clearly that the ground on which they were not pensionable was that they had not yet been assimilated.

Mr. SHORTT: No. The ground that they are not pensionable is that they are individual contracts. Each one is on a special contract of her own. It is a pure question of contract.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On this we have also a legal opinion. May I at least put it so far—that it is a very questionable legal point at this moment whether, if they are abolished, the Estimates will not have to bear an amount for pensions for them. So that to that extent the sum of £18,000 may or may not have to be reduced by a further sum for pensions.
There is another point. One of the duties of the police is the escorting of prisoners, and when it comes to escorting a woman prisoner, quite rightly, a single male constable is not allowed to do this, but there has also to be a woman with him. There is not, I fancy, a regular police matron for most cases, because there are too few of them, but temporary police matrons, who are generally the wives or widows of policemen. I ask the House to realise the expenditure involved in this perfectly futile extra expense. Supposing women police were properly sworn in, one single police woman could escort a female prisoner without there having to be a constable's expenses all along the line. In provincial towns at present where there are women police sworn in—take Bristol, for example—you get a prisoner brought up from Bristol by one police woman perfectly successfully. So far as I know, there have been no cases of trouble. On the other hand, in the case of a woman prisoner escorted from London to Bristol, the London woman constable is in the company of a male constable as well, and she is properly twitted by her sisters in Bristol for her incapacity to look after her prisoner. So that what happens is that you get two people escorting a female prisoner where one woman constable, properly sworn, is perfectly sufficient. If the House wants to see the ridiculous results we have had, take a case that happened early this spring.
There was a crippled woman who committed an offence at Glasgow. Two able-bodied London constables had to be sent to Glasgow, with the expense of the journey each way and the expense of their maintenance, in order to bring one crippled woman from Glasgow to London. Let me ask the House to calculate what the expense amounts to. I tried to elicit it by way of question, but have been unable to get statistics on points like these as to what the number of these long-distance escorts really is. As far as I could learn from evidence given earlier last year, probably the number of long distance escort journeys made by women police last year amounted to 300 or thereabouts, at a cost of at least £5 for each of the escorters. I should be glad to know the exact number. If they total up, as I should imagine, to 1,000 or more in a year, you get an absolutely unnecessary expenditure of £5 on each of these occasions, and if I am correct in that assumption, you get a sum of over £5,000, which has again to be deducted from that already dwindling amount. If you get the place of the women police taken over by police matrons or by temporary matrons, their pay no less, has again to be taken into account and that still further reduces the amount which by now we have got down to £11,000 per annum.
I next take the type of expense which is involved in taking evidence from young girls and children, and here I think the Home Secretary and the rest of the House will be with me in saying that that is evidence in the nature of the case which ought to be taken by women. Will any Member of the House realise that every detail of all that has taken place has to be elicited for evidence, and he will have a really clear idea that that is the type of evidence, from quite young girls, which ought to be taken by a woman, and a skilled woman, and not by a male constable. That is not work which can be done by an unskilled person. I claim to have had personally a considerable amount of experience at one time in making investigations in London and in the Provinces, and one thing that becomes quite clear is that when you question people, and especially when you question young people, it is skilled work which no ordinary unskilled woman can do, and that was the reason why a skilled person in the person of Miss McDougal
was appointed some years before the War in order to take evidence. But at this moment the body of evidence she has to take has grown so big that a number of women constables have been put on to the same work. What is going to happen if they are abolished? Is it six or seven women constables who are engaged in that work, and, if so, how many assistants is Miss McDougal going to have if they are abolished, and what is going to be their pay, or is she going to have assistants who will have motors to take them about—a suggestion which I heard—and how much expense would that be to the country by which to diminish the sum by £11,000?
May I take just one other point, and that is street work. The hon. Member has dealt with the case of soliciting. It is perfectly clear that work in connection with soliciting and work in connection with taking girls to a home is police work. It is not parsons' work, as has sometimes been said, or, if it is, it is only parsons' Work in the sense that an old police constable of some 30 years' standing said that in his time he had had in the course of his duties to do all kinds of work from that of a parson to that of a midwife. To that extent it may bo parsons' work, but it is police work, and it is within the scope of the instructions of every male constable as well as every female constable. No one can deny that it is not properly constables' work. The best authorities are coming round to the belief that dealing with soliciting can best be done by women police. Dealing with young women who are really—let me put the matter quite plainly to the House—not yet classed as prostitutes, but who are prostitutes in the making, and taking them to homes so that they shall be kept off the streets in the future—that is policeman's work, male or female, which is better done by female police than by men. Let me take another type of work that has to be done every day—the House will pardon me if I speak quite plainly—and that is indecency work in the London parks. Women police are on that work at the moment, and the male police are truly thankful that women police are doing that work. If the women police did not do that work, it is up to the male police to do it, or else it will have to be left undone.
Which alternative is the Home Secretary prepared to face? Is that work
to be left undone, or is he going to appoint more male constables to do it? If he is going to have it left undone, let him say so frankly, and if more male constables are to be appointed, then what becomes of the remainder of the saving? Let me take the consequential savings, though here it is difficult to give exact figures. If a girl is taken to a home by a policeman—everyone knows that there is no power of detention—unless care is taken that it is a suitable home the girl is out on the streets again and comes to the usual end—taken up, convicted, convicted again and again, and after a certain number of years her end is probably in the workhouse. What is the cost to the community of a conviction? I am told that it is between £30 and £40. I have been trying to get the record of the cases dealt with by the women constables who have endeavoured to see that the homes to which the girls are taken are such as will get such a hold on them that they will be turned again into girls leading a decent existence. You are saving conviction after conviction at costs which can be calculated, and you are saving expense to the rates and taxes and the woman's end in the workhouse. The question of venereal disease has already been dealt with. Statistics are not easy to obtain in this country, but if you go to America, to Germany or France it will be found that anything from 60 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the women who walk the streets have got venereal disease. I had one private investigation reported to me some months ago, before this question came up, and I have not tested it sufficiently to feel able to deal with it with absolute confidence, but of 75 cases taken for voluntary examination from the Strand, 71 were found to be ill with venereal disease. That means a great menace to the community, and it means a great loss to the community too. If a policewoman can, as is known to be the case, persuade a young girl to go, in the early stages, and be voluntarily examined, that case, in its early stages, can be dealt with at a total cost of £2 12s. 6d. Some of these cases cure themselves, but a large number do not, and, when later stages are reached, they take, sometimes a month or two, sometimes six months, sometimes years of treatment; and the average cost of six months' treatment for venereal disease
is £96 for hospital accommodation and drugs alone. That is the cost as regards the women, quite apart from the cost as regards the men who are infected, and the loss to the community of their work.
I have tried to deal with the money side of this matter alone, and this abolition of women police means no saving in money whatsoever. It means, if anything, a loss at the moment, and a very much larger consequential loss in its results. I have said little about what I may call the social value of this work to the community. I do not wish to criticise the Geddes Report. I do not think the Committee could have come to any other conclusion on the evidence before them. They pointed out that women's powers are limited, and said that that was a reason for abolishing them. But who allowed their powers to be limited? It was the Home Secretary. Give them the power of arrest, and you do away with one of the reasons for which the Geddes Committee urged their abolition. On the ground of economy, and quite apart from the absolute and undenied social utility of the work, it would be one of the falsest and most retrograde steps this House has ever taken to acquiesce in their abolition, and I shall do everything in my power to prevent it. I would appeal to the Home Secretary, because he, after all, has so many duties at the moment that it is difficult for him to concentrate on one part of them. I would ask him whether he would allow a real inquiry to be made into this question before he takes a step that many of us think—not sentimentally, but after having tried to examine it fairly—is a most retrograde and costly step. Will he have it really inquired into again, or will he, at least, concede this, that, as the Consolidated Fund Bill is not always a good occasion on which to get a decision of the House, the House shall be allowed an opportunity for a free and unfettered decision upon this question before any of the women police of the metropolis are disbanded?

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I much regret that Parliamentary procedure will not allow the House to go to a Division on this matter. In protesting against the suggestion of the Geddes Report that £27,000 should be saved by disbanding the women police, I do not wish to range myself against the present outcry for
economy, but to show that that £27,000 is money well spent, and that, spent in the manner in which it is at present, in maintaining the Metropolitan Women Police, it saves in many other ways in general expenditure. The old adage, "Prevention is better than cure," can be applied to many things, and amongst them to the women police, and also to the question of health. We all know-that, when the Minister of Health wishes to prevent an epidemic from spreading, he realises that to prevent spreading will be to save money, as compared with letting it spread and having to pay for curing the disease when it has spread. Before abolishing the women patrols, let us see on what grounds they were appointed. In 1829, when Sir Robert Peel instituted the Metropolitan Police, his guiding maxim was that the chief work of an efficient policeman was the preventive work that he did, and the cost of convicting persons was large. What applied then to the men police applies now to both sexes. Sir Leonard Dunning said that the cost of preventive work was a flea-bite compared with the results obtained. Male police officers "save" in a great many ways. They prevent people breaking the laws, and they try to prevent street accidents, burglaries, murder, and various other things, which cannot be reckoned in pounds, shillings, and pence. Women police officers prevent disorders. I do not wish to be regarded as underrating the splendid body of men police that we have, but I do wish to urge that the women can supplement the work that the men police do. The process of warning girls in the streets is necessarily rather a delicate matter, and, as has been said, can be done in a very much better way by women police than by men. In 1921 over 70,000 girls were warned in the streets. A large proportion of those 70,000 were prevented by the warnings from getting into further mischief. About 6,000 of them were taken by women patrols to shelters and beds and were put under proper care. Over 1,000 girls were taken to hospitals and treated for venereal disease, and at a time like this, when the country is trying to stamp out this disease, it is a great mistake to withdraw such a splendid agency as the women police at present are.
What is the alternative, expense? A child left in a reformatory school costs
between £60 and £70 a year. A prisoner in a local prison costs the community £86 a year. A remand woman prisoner costs 33s. a week. These are all expenses which will be incurred if these preventive measures are discontinued. What is represented by these figures of cases approached by the women? They represent, first of all, a saving in public health, a saving not only in money but in general efficiency. A healthy girl or woman is an asset to a nation, and an unhealthy girl or woman is a national burden. They represent a saving of money by keeping our children out of reformatory schools and by keeping out of prisons and hospitals and workhouses women who would otherwise be sent there. As I have said, in the case of an epidemic the Minister of Health knows that the isolation laws will prevent a great deal of expense, though it would not be possible, to state the amount in money. The male police prevent accidents in the streets; the female police prevent worse than accidents to our girls and women. The male police prevent burglaries, and save money in that way. The female police give advice and recommend shelters for women, and thus prevent much further mischief. Then there is the searching of women and the taking of statements from young children. Those are necessarily very delicate matters. The women patrols have shown, in the last year or two, how very capable they are in approaching children in a quiet and understanding way.
At present there are 113 of these women patrols in the Metropolitan area. They are well trained, efficient, picked women, and are thoroughly competent. If they are disbanded all their training will be thrown away. Their equipment and their clothes—that "ugly uniform" to which the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) recently took such exception—will have to be scrapped at great expense. We have been told that pensions are not going to be paid to them by the Government. If that be so, one may ask, is there going to be any security in the future for people engaged by the Government? The workers, men and women, are going to lose confidence in the Government, if contracts are to be broken in this manner. Reference has already been made to the Departmental Report of 1920. The Home Office accepted certain
of the recommendations of that Committee, and it was not a Committee of cranks. It included the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir Francis Blake), the hon. Member for Dumfries (Major W. Murray), and the then Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. C. D. Murray). It called many witnesses and took the evidence of many chief constables. Acting on its Report, the Metropolitan women police were appointed. Provincial women police were also appointed, and if the Metropolitan women police are disbanded, it will weaken the Watch Committees in the provinces who have the power of appointing women police. As some economy in the Metropolitan police is necessary, I ask, why concentrate on the entire abolition of one section of it?

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear! That is the point.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: These women have done special work. They are recognised as having created a better life in the streets of London. I beg of the Home Secretary to look elsewhere if he has to make economy. The total cost of the Metropolitan Police is £7,000,000. The suggested economy is £27,000 which is one two hundred and fiftieth part of the whole cost. If on the question of health we have to economise the Minister of Health does not cut out one whole department. If we are going to economise in education, the Minister of Education does not take one block out of the educational system. If we are going to economise in our own homes, we do not decide to do without fire or to do without food. If as individuals we seek to economise in our clothes, we do not do without hats or overcoats but cut down a little in every direction.

Viscountess ASTOR: Listen to that!

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I plead with the Home Secretary, if he has to make this economy of a two hundred and fiftieth part of the total sum that there should be a partial reduction and a proportionate reduction as between the two sections of the police. The health of the nation is the wealth of the nation and no national saving is an economy if it is at the expense of the wellbeing of the race and our women and girls.

Mr. SHORTT: Everyone knows perfectly well that no matter what cut may have been recommended by the Geddes Committee, there are certain people who will oppose it. To-night I am faced with the proposition of supporting a cut which is recommended by the Geddes Committee, but is opposed by a number of hon. Members. They are all sincerely opposed to the recommendation. I fully acknowledge that. One would suppose, hearing the speeches this evening, that, in the first place, no work was done in connection with the police by women until the women police were established. One would suppose that the moment the women police were disbanded, all work done by women in connection with the police would end. That is absolutely untrue.

Viscountess ASTOR: It was qualified.

Mr. SHORTT: One would suppose that the women police had done police work as apart from welfare work. There is the whole gist of the trouble financially. I am the last person to belittle welfare work done by women police, Salvation Army girls, or any other person, but the question arises, is it police work?

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes.

Mr. SHORTT: Is it work which should be put on the. Police Vote, which should be reckoned as that which is entailed in the Police Vote of the House of Commons? That is the whole point.

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes. Might I—

Mr. SHORTT: I listened to the hon. Member for Plymouth while she shook her fist at me, and I hope she will listen to me. Let me say this at once. The disbandment of the women police will not entail the employment of one single additional policeman. [An HON. MEMBEE: "What about Hyde Park?"] There has not been a single policewoman in Hyde Park who has not had a policeman to protect her. The disbandment of the women police will not involve the reorganisation of a single police beat in the Metropolis, and the fact of the matter is that wherever we have employed these policewomen, we have been obliged to employ policemen to protect them in case of need.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, oh!

Mr. SHORTT: It is all very well to say "Oh," but I am stating what is the fact. It is said that policewomen are the proper persons to escort women prisoners. I agree, but do not let it be supposed for a moment that before the policewomen existed, women prisoners were not escorted by women. They have always been escorted by women for the last 20 years, and they always will be. Do not let it be supposed that when women prisoners are searched they are not going to be searched by women in future, as they were before women police were heard of. Do not let it be supposed that children and small girls whose evidence has to be taken are not going to be interrogated by women, and by trained women. They were before policewomen were heard of, and they will be after the policewomen are disbanded. All that will still be done, and done by women who are as highly trained as any of those who are in the police force. I am glad to say that some of the women in the police force we shall be able to continue to keep on, and all that work will still be done by women. It will be done at one-third of the cost of uniformed women, and the whole question is really not whether or not it should be done by women—everybody agrees that it should, and everybody agrees that it will—but whether it is to be done by a woman who wears a swagger uniform or by an ordinary woman out of uniform. That is the whole question before the House. We are told that these women do a great work protecting young girls and young women, and we have had a large number of figures given us to-night of the work which the women police have done. I have endeavoured in Scotland Yard, where these women have been reporting, where all the information ought to be given, to find out what is the truth about these figures of which we have heard. I do not know where the hon. Members got their figures.

Viscountess ASTOR: Scotland Yard.

Mr. SHORTT: No, they certainly did not. They may have got them from some persons who ought to have reported them to Scotland Yard, but they have not got them from Scotland Yard. Do they imagine that they are the only women who bring girls to these homes? Do they imagine they are the only women who are doing a great work, welfare work,
among the fallen women of this town? There is no question about it, and policeman after policeman has told me the same thing. A Salvation Army lassie will bring in many more girls than any uniformed policewoman. I have been told that by policeman after policeman. I do hope the House will believe me when I say it is not a question of belittling welfare work. We agree that welfare work is well done by women, and must be done by women. We are equally agreed that the police must protect women when they are doing it. Who is going to allow a woman to go unprotected into a wild place, where young girls may be, and make an arrest, when she may be attacked by a lot of other women, and even by men and bullies?
I am not belittling the work of the women police at all, but the fact remains that they can do no work without male protection. We have given them that-male protection, and we shall give any woman male protection who docs work in the same way. The whole question before the Geddes Committee was not whether the work being done by these women is good, but is it police work? Is it work which ought properly to be charged to the Police Fund, which partly falls on the Exchequer, and partly on the rates? That is the whole question. Are these women doing police work? Their work is good. I admit that at once, and frankly, just as the Church Army, just as the Salvation Army, just as any other peoples' work is good; and if it be thought that a uniform is of some value, let them wear the uniform of the Ministry of Health, or anything you like, but it is not police work. And, as I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury this afternoon, "It is your work, and not that of the Metropolitan Police." [An HON. MEMBER! "It is everybody's work!"] It is his work, but you cannot get it done without male protection. You could not possibly allow women to go out into the streets, whether they have got the right of arrest or not, without male protection in case of strife.

Lord R. CECIL: Do the women police in Bristol, for instance, where they have full power, always have male protection in their work?

Viscountess ASTOR: Of course they do not, and he knows it.

Mr. SHORTT: In spite of what the hon. Member said, in not quite courteous terms, I do not.

Viscountess ASTOR: But we do know.

Mr. SHORTT: We are not discussing the Bristol police at the present moment. Each individual police authority will speak for itself. We are discussing the Metropolitan Police, and I am now giving to the House the best advice I get from those who advise me in the Metropolitan Police.

Viscountess ASTOR: What about the advice in the Committee's Report?

Mr. SHORTT: It is perfectly true that the hon. Member was a Member of a Committee which took evidence at a time when women police had not been tried. We are now discussing the question at a time when they have been tried, and that just makes all the difference. Therefore, what I ask the House to say is this: They do good work, but it is not police work. All moral work prevents crime. Every clergyman who does his work, every Sunday School teacher who does his work and gets home to the young people, is preventing potential crime. All that, in the same sense as these policewomen's work, is police work, but it is not really police work which we are justified in charging upon the Police Fund. These women have done work which will continue to be done by women, but not in uniform, not in these blue coats and that kind of thing, but will be done by women as efficiently and as well as it is being done to-day—quite as efficiently and at one-third of the cost. The £20,000 that we have reckoned at saving is taken into account in the expenditure on the women who have to be employed to-day, but at a much smaller cost. They have done the work with perfect efficiency. It may be said: "Oh, that is all very well; these are the views of police officers." They are. These women are the wives of the sergeants and the constables. They are probably mothers. They know the work, for it does not take long to train them to go and deal decently with the poor little child who has to be interrogated. It needs a woman with womanly sympathy, and you get in the wives of the constables and sergeants women with womanly sympathy, and they can do the work.
It is suggested that we should leave a nucleus, in order that if a change is made the policewomen may be restored. I have looked into this matter, and I trust that the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)' will believe me when I say that I have honestly tried to get the point of view of those who wanted to restore the women police. I have taken every possible advice I can about it, and I am assured that if a nucleus be preserved, and it is subsequently—say in two or three years' time when times are better—decided to restore the women police, such nucleus would not affect the time of their restoration by one week. If I thought a nucleus would help the restoration I would consider it carefully, but I am assured it would not help in the slightest degree.
We, all of us in this House, are doing our best to cut down expenditure. We do not want to cut down expenditure which in any way is really economical expenditure, but in this particular case all the evidence and all the suggestions that have been brought forward as to what these women police are doing is that it can be done perfectly well by other women, at a third of the price, minus the women police. It can be done perfectly efficiently.
There is no single item of the welfare work that need cease. These are not the only women who do welfare work. There are others, and in any case the work could be continued; but this is not work which is police work at all. You cannot say that it is police work. The whole thing depends whether you ought to put down as police work which is purely welfare work—work most desirable, most commendable, and most valuable to the country, but purely welfare work. The Geddes Committee have said it is not. I am bound to admit, when I am discussing this, that the work these women do is not police work proper. It is welfare work, and the Geddes Committee have said this ought not to be charged to the Police Fund. If the House of Commons wants to vote definite money to welfare work, let the House of Commons do it, but let the House of Commons know when it votes the money that it is for pure welfare work, and not for police work. If the House of Commons sanction a Vote for welfare work, well and good, but it
would be wrong for me to pretend that the House is voting money for police work when welfare work, good and admirable as it is, has nothing to do with it. For those reasons, I am bound to adopt this course.

IRELAND.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am exceedingly sorry that I am compelled to intervene at this late hour of the night, and possibly, through no fault of my own, to prevent many hon. Members who are interested in this question pursuing the discussion further. As, however, this matter we propose to bring before the House is one of vital and far reaching importance to my own constituency, and as this is one of the rare opportunities we are able to secure for the discussion of those matters which affect us, I trust the House will forgive me for intervening at this stage.
I intend to-night to take advantage of this opportunity to raise the whole question of the appalling conditions in Belfast, the massacre of innocent and unoffending Catholic citizens, the continued bombing of women and children, the establishment of a system of wholesale terrorism amongst the Catholic minority in the city, culminating in the cold-blooded assassination of Mr. McMahon and his family, which has shocked almost the entire world. These conditions are so terrible that I feel it is urgent to bring to the knowledge of the House and the world the state of terrorism that exists there. There is no doubt about it that, in my reading of the atrocities of the Turks in Armenia, and some of the infamies committed in Russia, there is no parallel for what is going on in Belfast at this moment, for the last two weeks, and almost the last 12 months. If I have remained silent, perhaps to many who are deeply affected by those horrible conditions existing there, it was in the profound belief and hope that time, the softening of political asperities, and the gradual growing power of the existing Government in Northern Ireland, would put an end to this condition of things that is undoubtedly a blot on civilisation and a disgrace to humanity.
Let me briefly state what has occurred in the last few days. I will come to a matter that indeed most deeply affects the Government. I propose to saddle the
Government with the responsibility for what is going on there, because when it comes to the knowledge of the House that most of these violent attacks, assassinations, bomb-throwing, and murders take place between the hours of eleven o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning—the curfew hours—the House will realise that I am compelled, as I am compelled, to endeavour to saddle the responsibility upon those who are responsible for the Government, for the preservation of public order, and for the defence of the people's liberties. During curfew hours this morning bombs were thrown into a crowd in Unity Street, Belfast. At 4.15 this morning a second bomb was thrown in the same district, and a further bomb was thrown later on. It is the conviction of the people whom I represent that most of these outrages are committed by the uniformed officers of the law, and that the men who are paid to protect the defenceless minority are themselves the miscreants who are committing these deeds.
These outrages, which have been going on for the last 12 months, and with greater ferocity, culminated in the murder of one of the most respectable families in Belfast. I speak with some feeling with regard to this latest outrage. Mr. McMahon, whose four sons were murdered and two of whose sons now lie dying in the hospital, was a very close and intimate personal friend of mine. He was a leading merchant in the City of Belfast. He was a man who, if you were to go through the whole city would be regarded as the most unoffending citizen. He took no part in politics. He had a family of sons, now murdered, who were fine, vigorous, athletic young men, who took no part in politics. Here, at I o'clock in the morning, a band of assassins entered Mr. McMahon's house, dragged his wife and little niece out and forced them into a room, and forced Mr. McMahon and his six sons into another room, and murdered him and four of his sons and mortally wounded two others.
11.0 P.M.
To give the House an idea of the character of this crime, I propose to read to the House a description of this scene from a leading Unionist paper, the "Belfast Evening Telegraph." It stated that the most terrible assassination that has ever stained the name of Belfast took
place in the early hours of this morning, when five men were murdered in a district right in the heart of Belfast. Here lived Mr. McMahon and his family of six sons, his wife and niece and domestics, including his manager. Mr. McMahon, who is the proprietor, is one of six brothers owning licensed houses in the city. In the early hours of the morning, at 1.30, five assassins crept into the house and murdered five of the occupants, and two others were badly wounded. The family were in bed and the house was in darkness, when a thunderous sound was heard which Mrs. McMahon thought was a bomb. She and her husband went downstairs and were met by masked men carrying large revolvers. The gas had been lighted in the sitting room. What happened to Mr. and Mrs. McMahon could only be assumed, for the husband was now dead and the poor wife was in a stupor in a neighbour's house. The women in the house were collected and put into a back room on the first floor, and then the intruders proceeded upstairs, awakened the men, ordered them downstairs in their shirts at the point of the revolver and were put into a parlour. There was a pause, and then the leader of the assassins told the terror-stricken victims to avail themselves of the few minutes left, them to pray for their souls. While Mrs. McMahon the wife and mother was praying for the lives of her loved ones the revolvers spoke repeatedly, and one by one the victims fell. The shots intended for the youngest victim, a boy of 11, missed the lad, and shrieking with fright he ran round the dining table and hid under the sofa, being discovered there when the rescuers entered later on. In all the murderers were not more than five or six minutes in the house, and having satisfied their blood lust in this most terrible form they disappeared over the palings and were lost in the dark.
As I said, Mr. McMahon was a personal friend. I felt profoundly moved, and horrified and indignant. I was anxious to get the truth, so far as it could be ascertained, so I called yesterday at the hospital and interviewed Mrs. McMahon. She told me distinctly she saw men in uniform committing these crimes, and I understand that the little girl, her niece, also says—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into details of the evidence-matters which are really under the control of the Government of Northern Ireland. I understood when he spoke to me privately his claim was that His Majesty's Ministers, who are here in reference to the Conference to be held to-morrow, should be made to feel that the conditions in Belfast are not lost sight of. So far the hon. Member would be quite in Order, but I must ask him not to trench on what is really within the province of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: I propose, as you will see presently, to justify my claim that this is a matter that can be brought before this House, because these special con stables, who are a menace to the State, who are far worse than the Black and Tans in the South of Ireland, who are infinitely worse than the, Black and Tans who so horrified the world, and whose misdeeds so horrified humanity every where, that this Government was compelled to take them away and try some other policy—I say these special constables are worse than the Black and Tans, and they are, I assert, paid, not by the Government of Northern Ireland, but by His Majesty's Government, and I want to know from Members representing English constituencies whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his point clearly. He has been a long time in arriving at it. Is it very plain that these constables are paid from the British Exchequer?

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes; and the Secretary of State for the Colonies will not deny it. I have been listening to economy Debates. I have been listening to the eloquent speeches of distinguished ladies asking for £27,000, which you are economising, for the maintenance of women police to do not only a great work, but to serve humanity and lift those poor fallen women and help them: and you are taking that £27,000 away. Yet you are paymasters of those whom, I declare here to-night in the House, are responsible for those misdeeds that are shocking the whole world. Five minutes before I got up here in the House, I got a cablegram from America, from some one I do not know at all, saying:
All America is shocked at the story of those infamous barbarities.
I want to say to the English Members now, in the midst of all this cry for economy, when you tell us that you cannot build houses for heroes to live in, that you cannot spend this £27,000 on the maintenance of an efficient police force in London, that you are prepared to subsidise and pay for hired assassins who are bringing the blush of shame to our cheeks. Is there any hon. Member of this House who does not blush at the story, which has not been told by me in inflammatory language, but registered in the cold language of an Ulster Unionist paper? I myself might regard this as an isolated case that has occurred as a reprisal for something done. It might be an excuse if it were a reprisal, but it could not by any possibility be a justification. But for 12 months I have been bringing cases, not perhaps so striking in their infamy or so blood-curdling in their details as this one, but cases of a similar character before this House, and never has one of the miscreants been brought to justice. In November, 1920, I drew the attention of the House to the cold-blooded murder of three young Catholics, Messrs. Gaynor, Troddyn, and McFadden, who were shot in their homes at one in the morning, two hours after curfew, when the city was entirely in the hands of Government forces. In May last there was the murder of two brothers, Duffin, in Springfield Gardens, at the time of the curfew, when the armed forces in the city were those of the Government. On Sunday, 11th June, there was another murder of three young Catholics, Alexander McBride, William Kerr, and William Halfpenny, who were brutally murdered by armed men, who drove to the house in motor cars and dragged the victims from their beds. In these cases the murders were committed in the presence either of the wives or the mothers of the victims. Finally, we have the case of Mr. McFahon. I will not refer again to the case of the bombing of the children in Weaver Street where a number of children were killed. All this has been done in Belfast where you have a settled Government and the Northern Parliament with all the power they can possess. The Northern Parliament was set up in order to protect the minority. There is a minority of 100,000 citizens in a population of less than 400,000 and that minority is living in a state of stark and absolute
terror. These gangs of assassins have lists of names and on the slightest provocation they go to these homes of isolated Catholics living away far from the City. In some cases they bring motor lorries and in others, as in the case of the McMahon family they sneak in the dead of the night and pierce into the homes of these innocent people and murder them. Not one of them has ever been brought to justice. Not one has ever been arrested. The comedy mixed with this horrible appalling tragedy is that at this very moment the Northern Parliament is passing through a Restoration of Order Bill, more coercive and more indefensible than any Bill passed here for dealing with the rest of Ireland. Let me tell the House the story Mrs. McMahon told me. A special constable who lived near her came to her boys and said, "I will give you revolvers to protect yourselves." The boys said, "We do not want revolvers. We do not interfere in anything that causes conflict or trouble. We do not want them." If they had had revolvers in the house they could have protected their lives. The Northern Government is passing an Act which enacts that if a revolver or rifle is found in any house in Belfast the person who owns it will be flogged or executed. Then if Catholics have no revolvers to protect themselves they are murdered. If they have revolvers they are flogged or sentenced to death. Was there ever anything like it in any Christian land? That Act is being carried through Parliament now.
Now let me come to this point. Let me tell you who these special constables are. A portion of them belonged to Lord Carson's army—political partisans organised to break the law. Another section of them are what are called B constables. They are men who only do marching work, belonging to Orange Lodges, Tory associations and things of that sort. They get £1 for marching along the road, or through unfrequented parts of the city—all political partisans. Now there is a third class called C constables. Sir James Craig announced the other day that he was going to arm 20,000 of these men. There is nothing to prevent them breaking into my house any night. I do not carry arms. I should not know how to use them if I had them. I once got into frightful trouble at a time when arms were very
popular for saying that if I had my will I would not have a rifle or revolver in Ireland in the hands of anyone. They are a curse in any country where they are.
I assisted the British Empire in their task during the War, because they were fighting Prussian militarism. It was not because it was Prussian militarism, but because it was militarism. I do not care whether militarism is American, English, German, or French; it is a curse upon humanity, and has cankered and corroded all that is best and noblest and Christian amongst men and women. For my part, if I had a revolver I could not use it. [Interruption.] I will not reply to a single interruption. I could squash that gentleman with a breath. I could blow him out as the last of the Die-hards, but I do not notice him; the matter is too serious. If these men choose they can go into my house any night. I have got countless threatening letters from them, but I do not care about those threatening letters, for I trust that, however I may be lacking in physical courage, I am not without moral courage. However unpopular, or undesirable, or difficult the task may be, in the public interest I will perform it, and in that spirit I am performing that duty now. They could come in at any time and shoot me dead. My political opponents are armed against mc, but under the Restoration of Order Act—how splendidly euphonious and beautifully musical are these expressions used to camouflage these coercive measures and these attempts to destroy the liberty of the citizen—if I were found with a revolver I could be flogged or sentenced to death, and if I have no weapons, as in the case of the McMahons, then my life is not worth 24 hours' notice. I again point out to the Secretary of the Colonies that all this is being paid for out of the depleted Exchequer of England. In the Northern Parliament the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared the other day that you were paying for it up till October, and he says that he will saddle you with all the expenditure for the continuance of this force in Belfast. Further, Sir James Craig announced that he was going to vote £2,000,000 out of the Exchequer of the Northern Parliament—an almost empty Exchequer—to raise some other military force, to finance either the "C"
specials or some other force. And this whole, splendid and scientifically organised military machine is to be under the skilful handling of Sir Henry Wilson, now the Member for Down. He has now come into Parliament, and is the Member for North Down. Within the last few weeks deputations of Catholic traders and merchants have come to me from Belfast asking me, for God's sake, to do something to get their lives preserved and their property defended. Two hundred shops belonging to Catholics have been burnt to the ground, and nearly a hundred of these men or their shopmen or assistants have been murdered. One of my own greatest friends in business in Belfast told me the other day—I hardly knew him when I met him, he was so unnerved—that he had not slept in his house for six months. He sleeps away in another part of the city. All this is happening in a city that has a Government of its own, that has full control and untrammelled power in regard to preserving law and order. They got that Parliament because they represented a minority as compared with the rest of Ireland, and, mark you, these men who are attacked and assassinated, whose property is destroyed, whose children are assassinated, are not politicians at all. People talk about Sinn Fein, but these men have no more to do with Sinn Fein than the Colonial Secretary. Most of them are supporters of mine, and I am told, "You, the constitutionalist, you the man that looks to Parliament for the redress of public grievances, this is how your constituents are treated, and there is no redress." I say now frankly that in my judgment this is a deliberate plot to exterminate the Catholics of Belfast and drive them out of the city, and as long as the British Government chooses to pay to maintain these special constables, so long will these things go on. Surely some more useful purpose could be served by the expenditure of this money. In addition to what you are paying for maintaining these special constables, who are not constables at all, but malefactors in uniform, they are voting £2,000,000 themselves for the purpose of raising a fresh army. The fact of the matter is that our people do not know where to turn or what to do in the circumstances.
I have tried to think out as best I could what could be done to meet this horrible
condition of affairs, and I am prepared to make a suggestion. I say that these special constables should be disbanded altogether. The first and the only justification for police at all is that they maintain order, that they defend the people's liberties, that they stand by the people's rights. There was an article the other night in one of the Belfast papers asking, "Are we living in Mexico?"—and these are the most, model people in Ireland. If with special constables, and the expenditure of vast sums of money which are a drain on the Imperial Exchequer at a time when public funds are needed for so many and so varied purposes of national utility in this country, this is the record of their work for law and order, surely it is time that the right hon. Gentleman cried "Halt!' I believe that if the British taxpayers knew that this money was being paid by them to maintain a force like that, there would be an absolute uprising amongst the indignant taxpayers of this country at being called upon to finance a conspiracy of wrong and disorder.
My next suggestion is that, until these people learn to behave themselves, the whole city should be put under the military. The people, even in the worst and most violent days in the South of Ireland, had respect for the military. You had no hestitation, when there was an odd murder here and there, in put ting martial law into operation in the rest of Ireland. The military ought to be under an absolutely impartial authority, and subject to control by the, right hon. Gentleman or by the Secretary for War. There ought to be, as I suppose there must be, a police force, but it should be an independent police force, controlled by some Commission, composed half of Catholics and half of Protestants, which would be independent of this Northern Government. In that way something might be done. That is all that I can think of as a means of stopping these crimes. The fact is that something horrible will occur there. I want to avoid and avert it if I can. I do not know whether any hope lies in the Conference to be held to-morrow. I profoundly hope that some good will come out of it, and that this campaign of murder will end. But it arouses tremendous passion, and makes a solution profoundly difficult, when the whole vast mass of Catholics of the rest
of Ireland see their co-religionists treated in this fashion in Belfast by those who have lived and thrived upon their platitudinous expressions of "law and order," which have been their stock-in-trade on every platform and have won for them this Northern Parliament. The fact of the matter is, that England does not realise what is going on. There is a Catholic church in one of these districts. It is attacked about every week. Soldiers have to be brought up constantly to protect the Convent. Attempts were made to burn down the Convent. I saw parts of it burned myself, and nuns were driven from it. You would not find a Protestant in an area which would cover the ground from here to the Westminster Palace Hotel. There are in the area a dozen Protestant churches to which the Protestants go unmolested, not one of them attacked. They go in crowds to the Protestant churches in the Catholic districts, and I was informed that the volunteers actually lined up to see that nothing was done to them in the pursuit of their Christian obligations on the Sabbath morning. But that the powerful party, the party of the 250,000 of population, the party of wealth, the party of intelligence, the party which claims to have all the virtues, should wage war upon these wretched and helpless and defenceless men and women is enough for the world to cry "Shame" on them. Many in Belfast are already saying, "Oh, Lord, Oh, Lord, how long?"

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will recollect that hitherto I have declined questions or debate on the subject of law and order in Northern Ireland, and I think rightly so. But it has come to my knowledge only to-night that an arrangement has been made for a certain contribution in aid of the constabulary forces in Northern Ireland which is under the control of His Majesty's Ministers here. That, of course, has altered the position, and to that extent has brought within the rules of Order the speech of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I felt bound, in justice to myself, to explain to the House that a new fact had arisen, which alters the decision I had given previously.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): No one will quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr.
Devlin) because of his very strong, bitter, passionate feeling at the present state of affairs among his own people, in his own constituency, and in a city with which, all his life, he has been associated. I am not going to trespass long on the attention of the House, but a few words are required from this bench in answer to the vehement protest and appeal, the cry of pain and indignation which he has raised. Let me say just a word or two upon the facts, and then I will say a little about the responsibility which we have assumed in regard to these matters in Northern Ireland.
It is impossible to describe more powerfully and more horribly the massacre of the McMahon family than has been done in the quotations from a Unionist newspaper—I draw the attention of the House to that, a Belfast Unionist newspaper—cited and quoted by my hon. Friend. I think one would have to search all over Europe to find instances of equal atrocity, barbarity, cold blooded, inhuman, cannibal vengeance—cannibal in all except the act of devouring the flesh of the victim—which will equal this particular event. But I can find other instances in other places in Ireland equalling it in horror. Only a week ago two unfortunate sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Galway—both desperately ill in the hospital, in a district from which the rest of their comrades had been withdrawn, without, unhappily, notice of their presence in hospital being sent to the Provisional Government which would have ensured no attempt being made—were crept in upon at night and murdered in their weak, helpless, invalid condition, with every circumstance of cold blooded fury and barbarity. A wretched man already once wounded, in the workhouse hospital, was again dragged out while still in that awful state of physical and moral weakness which attends recovery from gunshot wounds, and was shot to death. If we are to paint these horrors in lurid terms, with all the resources of powerful descriptive rhetoric, they will have to be painted on both sides.
What Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen are asking themselves is: Why is it that Irishmen will go on doing these things to one another? We stand in a new position now. I think the House, as
the Session advances, increasingly appreciates the strength of the new position in which the representatives of the British Government stand. We seek only the repression and the termination of these horrors. We have no other object and no other interest. The rest must lie with the representatives of the Irish people across the Channel. Everything we can do to help them to shake themselves free from this convulsion and spasm—due, no doubt, to the tragedies of the past—will be done, and every action which I shall submit from this box must be defended and justified only in reference to that.
What are we doing? We are most strictly following out, with all its consequences, and with all its disadvantages, where disadvantage occurs, a two-fold policy. First, we are carrying out the Treaty which has been signed, for good or for evil, right to the end, with the utmost meticulous strictness in every point. Secondly, we are going to defend Ulster in the enjoyment of the rights which are secured to her. No one can suppose that there will not be many evil consequences and many difficulties and disappointments attaching to both those positions. You will be able to show, for instance, that carrying out the Treaty here and there causes the greatest possible disadvantage, or injury, or humiliation almost, in some parts of the country, or in some aspects. You will also be able to show that in this process of giving Ulster the necessary support that she requires to maintain what are her rights under the general arrangement, you will become responsible indirectly for episodes which fill everyone with the most profound shrinking and regret. All the same, those are the two planks in our platform, the two elements of our policy—that Ulster must be given the assurance that she will not be invaded, upset, brought into a condition of chaos, by any agitation created from the South, or arising in herself, in sympathy with the South, and, on the other hand, that the Treaty will be carried out strictly and honestly and fully in regard to the Southern Government. Thus we will show to both sections of Irishmen that nothing further is to be gained by force, that everything further can be gained by concord and agreement. We shall hold strongly to that position.
I venture to submit to you, Sir, the fact, which certainly has never been
concealed from the House of Commons, that we have decided to help Ulster during the present very critical period by granting certain sums of money in aid of the Special Police arrangements which she has to make, and also by putting in considerable numbers of troops, which will be reinforced if necessary. I cannot deny for a moment that that involves us in a certain degree of responsibility, but we shall not ignore that responsibility. We shall do our very best to make the influence which we have a right to assort in consequence of that responsibility felt continuously. That we have done, and that we shall do. Of course, you cannot judge any one episode in this Irish situation without reference to the others. Why is it that 20,000 special constables have been called out in Ulster? A violent raid was aimed, was levelled, across the frontier into the territories of Ulster, 50 or 60 people were hauled from their beds in the night, including an old man of 80 years of age, and dragged off into the territory of the Southern Irish Government, where they remained for three or four weeks. As soon as the Provisional Government could get to work, with their feeble resources—growing resources at the present time—they succeeded in securing the return of these men, but meanwhile the harm had been done. The whole of Ulster was in a state of the gravest panic, the whole borderline population was placed under the fear and apprehension that they might be dragged from their beds, and carried off into the mountains, and a sort of mobilisation took place. But if anything like that were to be done again, or threatened again, be sure that ample forces would be provided, and would be at hand in order to repel it, and to control the situation. I am hoping that, without either failing to do justice to Ulster or failing to do justice to our Treaty obligations, we may get to a better state of affairs. We have a great deal of influence in this matter, and we shall use it solely with the object of producing quietness and tranquillity. After all, it is very difficult to accuse the Ulster Government of the unnecessary mobilisation of 20,000 of these B Specials, when there are openly admitted to be We divisions of the so-called Irish Republican Army in Fermanagh and Tyrone at the present moment.

Mr. DEVLIN: I only referred to Belfast, which is 60 or 70 miles from the border, and although I would like to discuss the whole question with the right hon. Gentleman, I must ask him to confine himself to the particular instance with which I have dealt.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not going to confine myself to a particular instance. I must deal with the general state of affairs throughout the Northern Province. We are not giving a grant-in-aid merely for the B Specials in Belfast, and if Belfast were alone concerned, we should never have been called upon to render such assistance to the Northern Government. The great bulk of the B and A Specials are on the frontier in the districts which are disturbed, and it is to those that our grants have gone. I could not possibly defend the action of giving these sums of money except for the general fund.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Where are these Specials recruited?

Mr. CHURCHILL: From all over the Province of Ulster, from farmers' sons and others, and the greatest inconvenience and difficulty are being experienced in carrying on the ordinary agricultural processes, owing to so many men having been taken away from, their ordinary avocation.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not taken away. They have come away because they are paid by the Orange Lodges.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They would be extremely glad to return to their ordinary avocation. But it is my business to put both sides of the case, and I am bound to point out that, while there are two divisions of the so-called Irish Republican Army practising their military evolutions, practising bomb-throwing, road blowing-up, and all sorts of attack and ambuscade, actually organised within the territory of the Northern Government, that while there is this very strong movement on the border outside the territory of the Northern Government, it is quite impossible to expect that such a Government will not be in a state of very great anxiety, and will not be bound to take every kind of exceptional measure to preserve its own security. I am putting these points not at all in order to heighten feeling, but only in order to
show that my hon. Friend's picture would not be complete without a wider view being taken. As far as Belfast is con cerned, I agree with him to a very large extent that it is probably the main cause of the troubles on the border, and, indeed, a great exacerbation of all that is taking place in Ireland. If we could get that square mile of houses round Falls Road into a state of tranquility and peace, and ordinary civilisation and charity—

Mr. DEVLIN: I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman. There was not a single outrage in that district.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Anyhow, in that part of Belfast. I do not pretend to be very familiar with the geography of Belfast.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is the road you had to run down when Carson chased you with Galloper Smith.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like very much indeed to see both sections of the population, both creeds, both races, represented in a great effort to reestablish peace and order there. I do not at all exclude, if such measures fail, recourse to the impartial authority of the Imperial troops, who are now, in response to the demand of the Irish people, withdrawing their impartial and moderating influence from Irish affairs.
To-morrow we hope that the Conference will begin on this subject. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend has been careful in his speech in not saying anything that would complicate the task of the Conference. I am glad to know that no less than five Ministers of the Ulster Cabinet are coming over, and there are here four Ministers from the Provisional Government. It is my hope, and the hope of every one of us, that these Irishmen, dealing with purely Irish affairs, with nothing but the interests of their own island to consider, with no British influence brought to bear upon them from any point of view except that they shall live in peace and tranquillity together, will be able in the course of their frank and earnest discussions to arrive at some method of modifying the appalling horrors which are due to the hatred, and solely due to the hatred, of one creed and one class of Irishman against another.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION" SCHEME (DEWSBURY ENDOWED SCHOOLS FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Scheme.)

(1) The Scheme set out in the Schedule to this Act is hereby confirmed.

(2) Nothing in this Act or in that Scheme shall save as in that Scheme expressly provided take away abridge or affect any power or jurisdiction of the High Court or of the Board of Education with respect to the Foundation dealt with by that Scheme or with respect to any scheme affecting that Foundation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RAWLINSON: May we know something about this Bill?

Mr. FISHER: The object of the Bill is to sanction the municipalisation of certain endowment schools. The hon. and learned Gentleman will find the objections summarised in the last page of the Report. The most formidable objection was that of the West Riding County Council, who thought they might lose their representation on the governing body, and were solicitous for the rights of the West Riding children in admission to the schools. Their objection was not answered officially as it came after the statutory period had elapsed, but the answer would have been that, as the borough council of Dewsbury was taking over financial responsibility for the schools, it was obvious that in such subordinate matters as the composition of the governing body and the regulations for admission would have to be left in their discretion. The Bill has been before the House of Commons since early in February, and no kind of objections having reached the Board, it may be considered as an agreed Measure.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I gather that the Bill makes no further call upon the public Exchequer in any way—that the expenditure falls entirely upon the munici-
pality of Dewsbury, which is willing to undertake it?

Mr. FISHER: That is so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2 (Short Title) and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.